The Experts below are selected from a list of 6072 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Mary Joe Osberger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Imitative consonant feature production by children with multichannel Sensory Aids.
Ear and hearing, 1998Co-Authors: Susan Todd Sehgal, Karen Iler Kirk, Mario A. Svirsky, David J. Ertmer, Mary Joe OsbergerAbstract:Objective To examine changes over time in consonant feature production by children with profound hearing impairments who used either the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant or the multichannel vibrotactile Aid, TactAid 7. Design Imitative consonant productions of children with prelingual deafness were elicited and transcribed at two intervals: 1) before receiving their respective devices (predevice interval), and 2) after an average of 1.5 yr of device use (postdevice interval). The consonant productions were analyzed in terms of the percentage of consonant features (manner, place, and voicing) produced by the child that matched the features of the examiner's target. The percentage of features produced correctly was then averaged across repetitions, vowel environments, and participants within each group. Results At the predevice interval, the cochlear implant and TactAid 7 participants demonstrated similar imitative consonant production abilities. After an average of 1.5 yr of device use, the cochlear implant participants demonstrated significantly greater gains than did the TactAid 7 participants for the features of voicing and place of articulation. Although the cochlear implant participants showed a trend towards better production of the consonant manner features, this difference failed to reach significance. Conclusions The current results suggest that the use of a multichannel Sensory Aid yields improvements in consonant feature production. Furthermore, use of a cochlear implant appears to promote the production of consonant voicing and place features to a greater degree than does the use of a multichannel tactile Aid.
-
A comparison of vowel production by children with multichannel cochlear implants or tactile Aids: perceptual evidence.
Ear and hearing, 1997Co-Authors: David J. Ertmer, Susan Todd Sehgal, Karen Iler Kirk, Allyson I. Riley, Mary Joe OsbergerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in perceived vowel production accuracy over time in prelingually deafened children who use a multichannel cochlear implant (Nucleus 22 channel) or a multichannel tactile Aid (TactAid 7) and to compare the levels of perceived vowel production accuracy attained by the two device groups. DESIGN: The subjects were participants in longitudinal studies of the effects of Sensory Aids on the development of perceptual, speech, and language skills. As part of these studies, imitative vowel productions were elicited and transcribed before each child received their Sensory Aid and at 6 mo intervals thereafter. Data for the current study was obtained from the predevice interval and a later interval (postdevice) that was an average of 1.8 yr after the subjects received their respective devices. The subjects' vowel productions were judged for accuracy in matching an imitative model and for correctness of vowel features (height and place). Within-group analyses were completed to determine if vowel production scores improved over the course of the study for each device group. Between group comparisons were performed to examine differences in mean scores at each interval. RESULTS: Before receiving their multichannel devices, the two groups of subjects demonstrated similar imitative vowel production skills. After an average of 1.8 yr of device use, the cochlear implant subjects demonstrated significantly improved production of diphthongs and all vowel categories except low vowels. The TactAid 7 subjects demonstrated significant improvement only in the production of diphthongs. Thus, cochlear implant recipients' vowel production skills were found to be significantly better than those of the TactAid 7 users after a comparable amount of device experience. CONCLUSIONS: The vowel production gains of the cochlear implant subjects were similar in amount to those noted in other studies of children who use the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant and further confirm the potential of this device for improved speech production in prelingually deafened children. The differences between the performance of the two groups demonstrate that vowel production skills improved to a greater degree through use of a multichannel cochlear implant than through use of the TactAid 7.
-
lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear implant users
Ear and Hearing, 1995Co-Authors: Karen Iler Kirk, David B Pisoni, Mary Joe OsbergerAbstract:The Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant provides substantial auditory information to children with profound hearing impairments who are unable to benefit from conventional amplification. However, children who use the Nucleus cochlear implant greatly vary in their spoken word recognition skills (Staller, Beiter, Brimacombe, Mecklenburg, & Arndt, 1991a), depending in part on the age at onset and duration of their hearing loss (Fryauf-Bertschy, Tyler, Kelsay, & Gantz, 1992; Osberger, Todd, Berry, Robbins, & Miyamoto, 1991b; Staller et al., 1991a; Staller, Dowell, Beiter, & Brimacombe, 1991b), and on the length of cochlear implant use (Fryauf-Bertschy et al., 1992; Miyamoto et al., 1992, 1994; Osberger et al., 1991a; Waltzman, Cohen, & Shapiro, 1992; Waltzman et al., 1990). Several different types of tests have been used to assess the perceptual benefits of cochlear implant use in children because of this variability in performance. Closed-set tests, which provide the listener with a limited number of response alternatives, have been used to measure the perception of prosodic cues, vowel and consonant identification, and word identification. According to Tyler (1993), approximately 50% of children with multichannel cochlear implants perform significantly above chance on closed-set tests of word identification, and some obtain very high levels of performance (70% to 100% correct). For this latter group, more difficult open-set tests of spoken word recognition, wherein no response alternatives are provided, are needed to assess their perceptual capabilities. Historically, spoken word recognition tests were adapted from articulation tests used to evaluate military communications equipment during World War I1 (Hudgins, Hawkins, Karlin, & Stevens, 1947). Several criteria were considered essential in selecting test items, including familiarity, homogeneity of audibility, and phonetic balancing (i.e., to have phonemes within a word list represented in the same proportion as in English). Phonetic balancing was included as a criterion because it was assumed that all speech sounds must be included to test hearing (Hudgins et al., 1947), and that phonetic balancing ensured homogeneity across different lists (Hirsh et al., 1952). Subsequent research demonstrated that phonetic balancing was not necessary to achieve equivalent word lists (Carhart, 1965; Hood & Poole, 1980; Tobias, 1964) and that other nonauditory factors, such as subject age or language level, also influence spoken word recognition (Hodgson, 1985; Jerger, 1984; Smith & Hodgson, 1970). Nonetheless, phonetically balanced word recognition tests still enjoy widespread use in both clinical and research settings because their psychometric properties have been well established (Hirsh et al., 1952; Hudgins et al., 1947). These tests also are widely used because recorded versions of the test materials are available commercially, thereby facilitating comparison of results obtained at different test sites. Phonetically balanced word lists have been used to evaluate potential cochlear implant candidates, as well as to measure post-implant performance. Spoken word recognition is often assessed in children using phonetically balanced materials such as the Phonetically Balanced Kindergarten word lists (PB-K) (Haskins, Reference Note 1). Children with multichannel cochlear implants generally perform poorly on these phonetically balanced tests (Fryauf-Bertschy et al., 1992; Miyamoto, Osberger, Robbins, Myres, & Kessler, 1993; Osberger et al., 1991a; Staller et al., 1991a). For example, Osberger et al. (1991a) reported that the mean PB-K score for 28 subjects with approximately 2 yr of cochlear implant use was 11% (range 0% to 36%). Only six of their subjects scored above 0% words correct. Similarly, Staller et al. (1991a) reported mean PB-K scores of approximately 9% words correct for 80 children who had 1 yr of multichannel cochlear implant experience. It is difficult to distinguish among children with differing spoken word recognition skills using the PB-K test, or to measure changes with increased device experience because the scores of these subjects cluster in a restricted range near 0% correct. Furthermore, the parents and educators of children with cochlear implants have sometimes reported a discrepancy between the observed performance on these phonetically balanced word lists and real-world or everyday communication abilities in more natural settings. That is, children may obtain very low scores on phonetically balanced word lists, but demonstrate relatively good performance during daily activities. The administration of spoken word recognition tests assesses the underlying peripheral and central perceptual processes employed in spoken word recognition (Lively, Pisoni, & Goldinger, 1994; Pisoni & Luce, 1986). Models of spoken word recognition generally propose an initial stage of processing wherein the speech signal is converted to a phonetic representation, followed by a second stage wherein the phonetic representations are matched to the target words by comparing them to items stored in the mental lexicon (Luce, 1986; Luce, Pisoni, & Goldinger, 1990; Marslen-Wilson, 1987). (For an alternative view, see Klatt's Lexical Access From Spectra [LAFS] model [Klatt, 1980]). Poor performance on phonetically balanced speech identification tests may result from difficulties at either stage. If the auditory signal presented via the cochlear implant is too degraded to allow accurate phonetic encoding, word recognition performance will be impaired or reduced. The structure and organization of sound patterns in the mental lexicon can also influence word recognition (Pisoni, Nusbaum, Luce, & Slowiaczek, 1985). For example, when test item selection is constrained by phonetic balancing, the resulting lists may contain many words that are unfamiliar to children with profound hearing losses, who typically have limited vocabularies (Dale, 1974; Lach, Ling, & Ling, 1970; Quigley & Paul, 1984). Children should be able to repeat unfamiliar words if their Sensory Aid provides adequate auditory information for phoneme identification. If not, then children will most likely select a phonemically similar word within their working vocabulary. In addition, lexical characteristics, such as the frequency with which words occur in the language (Andrews, 1989; Elliot, Clifton, & Servi, 1983) and the number of phonemically similar words in the language (Treisman, 1978a, 1978b) have been shown to affect the speed and accuracy of spoken word recognition (Luce, 1986; Luce et al., 1990). Phonetically balanced word recognition tests were not designed to assess the influence of these lexical factors on word recognition. This paper reports the development of two new word recognition tests in which lexical properties of the test items were carefully controlled; test development was motivated by several assumptions embodied in current theories of spoken word recognition discussed below. Pediatric cochlear implant subjects’ performance on these new tests will also be compared with their performance on a phonetically balanced, word recognition test, the PB-K test.
-
Speech Intelligibility of Children With Cochlear Implants, Tactile Aids, or Hearing Aids
Journal of speech and hearing research, 1993Co-Authors: Mary Joe Osberger, Monica Maso, Leslie K. SamAbstract:Speech intelligibility was measured in 31 children who used the 3M/House single-channel implant (n=12), the Nucleus 22-Channel Cochlear Implant System (n=15), or the TactAid II + two-channel vibrotactile Aid (n=4). The subjects were divided into subgroups based on age at onset of deafness (early or late). The speech intelligibility of the experimental subjects was compared to that of children who were profoundly hearing impaired who used conventional hearing Aids (n=12) or no Sensory Aid (n=2). The subjects with early onset of deafness who received their single- or multichannel cochlear implant before age 10 demonstrated the highest speech intelligibility, whereas subjects who did not receive their device until after age 10 had the poorest speech intelligibility. There was no obvious difference in the speech intelligibility scores of these subjects as a function of type of device (implant or tactile Aid). On the average, the postimplant or tactile Aid speech intelligibility of the subjects with early onse...
Karen Iler Kirk - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Assessing spoken word recognition in children who are deaf or hard of hearing: a translational approach.
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2012Co-Authors: Karen Iler Kirk, Laurie S Eisenberg, Lindsay Prusick, Brian F. French, Chad M. Gotch, Nancy M. YoungAbstract:Spoken word recognition tests have been part of the audiological assessment of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing for the last 60 years. Such tests have been used to assess the effects of hearing loss on spoken word recognition and speech perception, (Hudgins, Hawkins, Karling, & Stevens, 1947; Skinner, et al., 2002), to determine cochlear implant candidacy (Gifford, Dorman, Spahr, & Bacon, 2007; Kirk, 2000a), measure cochlear implant outcomes (Dorman, Gifford, Spahr, & McKarns, 2008; Eisenberg, Kirk, Martinez, Ying, & Miyamoto, 2004; Holt, Kirk, Eisenberg, Martinez, & Campbell, 2005) and to guide the development of an individual’s aural rehabilitation programs (Eisenberg, 2007; Mackersie, 2002). In research settings, listeners who are deaf or hard of hearing may be administered spoken word recognition tests to evaluate the effectiveness of signal processing strategies (Dorman, Loizou, Kemp, & Kirk, 2000; Firszt, Holden, Reeder, & Skinner, 2009; Gifford, Olund, & Dejong, 2011; Gifford, Shallop, & Peterson, 2008; Skinner, et al., 2002), to better understand perceptual processes that support spoken word recognition (Holt, Beer, Kronenberger, Pisoni, & Lalonde, 2012; Kirk, Pisoni, & Osberger, 1995; Krull, Choi, Kirk, Prusick, & French, 2010; Loebach, Bent, & Pisoni, 2008; Loebach & Pisoni, 2008) or to identify factors that contribute to individual variability (Desjardin, Ambrose, Martinez, & Eisenberg, 2009; Geers, 2006; Pisoni, Kronenberger, Roman, & Geers, 2011). Obviously, no one test can achieve all of these aims. Thus, the choice of spoken word recognition test(s) is dictated by the information one wishes to obtain. Our test development work originally was motivated by the observation that children with cochlear implants performed poorly on traditional tests of open-set word recognition despite the fact that parents reported their children could understand some speech through listening alone. We hypothesized that traditional tests, such as the Phonetically Balanced Kindergarten Word List (PBK) (Haskins, 1949), included vocabulary that was unfamiliar to children who are deaf or hard of hearing due to the constraints imposed by phonetic balancing of test items. Furthermore, we noted some shortcomings with traditional spoken word recognition tests. First, most tests used stimuli produced by one talker in carefully articulated speech. Such tests, in which acoustic variability is highly constrained, may not accurately reflect spoken word recognition abilities under more natural listening situations. Increasing stimulus variability by introducing multiple talkers or varying speaking rate reduces spoken word recognition performance in listeners with normal hearing (Mullenix, Pisoni, & Martin, 1989; Nygaard, Sommers, & Pisoni, 1992; Sommers, Nygaard, & Pisoni, 1994) and in listeners who are deaf or hard of hearing (Kaiser, Kirk, Lachs, & Pisoni, 2003; Kirk, 2000b; Kirk, Pisoni, & Miyamoto, 1997). Secondly, although most traditional clinical tests yield descriptive information about spoken word recognition, they reveal little about the underlying perceptual and cognitive processes employed by listeners who are deaf or hard of hearing. Finally, most tradional tests utilized an auditory-only presentation format that might not adequately characterize the performance of listeners who are deaf or hard of hearing. For example, although some adults and children with Sensory Aids demonstrate substantial auditory-only word recognition, others obtain high levels of speech understanding only when auditory and visual speech cues are available (Bergeson, Pisoni, & Davis, 2003; Hay-McCutcheon, Pisoni, & Kirk, 2005; Kaiser, et al., 2003). Furthermore, the ability to combine and integrate auditory and visual speech information has been found to be an important predictor of speech perception benefit with a Sensory Aid (Bergeson & Pisoni, 2004; Bergeson, Pisoni, & Davis, 2005; Lachs, Pisoni, & Kirk, 2001b) and thus has important implications for understanding the underlying representation and processing of speech in listeners who use these devices. We saw the need to take a new, translational approach to test development – one that builds upon a body of basic and clinical research concerning spoken word recognition by listeners with normal hearing or hearing loss. Over the last 15 years, we have created a series of word and sentence recognition tests. These measures are theoretically motivated by a model of spoken word recognition and also incorporate “real-world” stimulus variability in the form multiple talkers and presentation formats. The goal of this research is to enhance our ability to estimate real-world listening ability and to predict benefit from Sensory Aid use in children with varying degrees of hearing loss. Below we review our past and current test development activities.
-
Spoken word recognition development in children with residual hearing using cochlear implants and hearing AidS in opposite ears.
Ear and Hearing, 2005Co-Authors: Rachael Frush Holt, Karen Iler Kirk, Laurie S Eisenberg, Amy S Martinez, Wenonah CampbellAbstract:Objective: With broadening candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation, a greater number of pediatric candidates have usable residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears. This population potentially stands to benefit from continued use of conventional amplification in their nonimplanted ears. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate whether children with residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears benefit from bilateral use of cochlear implants and hearing Aids and to investigate the time course of adaptation to combined use of the devices together. Design: Pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe sensorineural hearing loss in their nonimplanted ears served as participants. Ten children continued to use hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears after cochlear implantation; 12 children used their cochlear implants exclusively. Participants were tested longitudinally on spoken word recognition measures at 6-month intervals. The children who continued wearing hearing Aids were tested in three Sensory Aid conditions: cochlear implants alone, hearing Aids alone, and cochlear implants in conjunction with hearing Aids. The children who did not continue hearing Aid use were tested after surgery in their only Aided condition, cochlear implant alone. Results: The results suggest that children with severe hearing loss who continued using hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears benefited from combining the acoustic input received from a hearing Aid with the input received from a cochlear implant, particularly in background noise. However, this benefit emerged with experience. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that it is appropriate to encourage pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe hearing loss to continue wearing an appropriately fitted hearing Aid in the nonimplanted ear to maximally benefit from bilateral stimulation. (Ear & Hearing 2005;26;82S–91S)
-
Spoken word recognition development in children with residual hearing using cochlear implants and hearing AidS in opposite ears.
Ear and hearing, 2005Co-Authors: Rachael Frush Holt, Karen Iler Kirk, Laurie S Eisenberg, Amy S Martinez, Wenonah CampbellAbstract:With broadening candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation, a greater number of pediatric candidates have usable residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears. This population potentially stands to benefit from continued use of conventional amplification in their nonimplanted ears. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate whether children with residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears benefit from bilateral use of cochlear implants and hearing Aids and to investigate the time course of adaptation to combined use of the devices together. Pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe sensorineural hearing loss in their nonimplanted ears served as participants. Ten children continued to use hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears after cochlear implantation; 12 children used their cochlear implants exclusively. Participants were tested longitudinally on spoken word recognition measures at 6-month intervals. The children who continued wearing hearing Aids were tested in three Sensory Aid conditions: cochlear implants alone, hearing Aids alone, and cochlear implants in conjunction with hearing Aids. The children who did not continue hearing Aid use were tested after surgery in their only Aided condition, cochlear implant alone. The results suggest that children with severe hearing loss who continued using hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears benefited from combining the acoustic input received from a hearing Aid with the input received from a cochlear implant, particularly in background noise. However, this benefit emerged with experience. Our findings suggest that it is appropriate to encourage pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe hearing loss to continue wearing an appropriately fitted hearing Aid in the nonimplanted ear to maximally benefit from bilateral stimulation.
-
Imitative consonant feature production by children with multichannel Sensory Aids.
Ear and hearing, 1998Co-Authors: Susan Todd Sehgal, Karen Iler Kirk, Mario A. Svirsky, David J. Ertmer, Mary Joe OsbergerAbstract:Objective To examine changes over time in consonant feature production by children with profound hearing impairments who used either the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant or the multichannel vibrotactile Aid, TactAid 7. Design Imitative consonant productions of children with prelingual deafness were elicited and transcribed at two intervals: 1) before receiving their respective devices (predevice interval), and 2) after an average of 1.5 yr of device use (postdevice interval). The consonant productions were analyzed in terms of the percentage of consonant features (manner, place, and voicing) produced by the child that matched the features of the examiner's target. The percentage of features produced correctly was then averaged across repetitions, vowel environments, and participants within each group. Results At the predevice interval, the cochlear implant and TactAid 7 participants demonstrated similar imitative consonant production abilities. After an average of 1.5 yr of device use, the cochlear implant participants demonstrated significantly greater gains than did the TactAid 7 participants for the features of voicing and place of articulation. Although the cochlear implant participants showed a trend towards better production of the consonant manner features, this difference failed to reach significance. Conclusions The current results suggest that the use of a multichannel Sensory Aid yields improvements in consonant feature production. Furthermore, use of a cochlear implant appears to promote the production of consonant voicing and place features to a greater degree than does the use of a multichannel tactile Aid.
-
A comparison of vowel production by children with multichannel cochlear implants or tactile Aids: perceptual evidence.
Ear and hearing, 1997Co-Authors: David J. Ertmer, Susan Todd Sehgal, Karen Iler Kirk, Allyson I. Riley, Mary Joe OsbergerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in perceived vowel production accuracy over time in prelingually deafened children who use a multichannel cochlear implant (Nucleus 22 channel) or a multichannel tactile Aid (TactAid 7) and to compare the levels of perceived vowel production accuracy attained by the two device groups. DESIGN: The subjects were participants in longitudinal studies of the effects of Sensory Aids on the development of perceptual, speech, and language skills. As part of these studies, imitative vowel productions were elicited and transcribed before each child received their Sensory Aid and at 6 mo intervals thereafter. Data for the current study was obtained from the predevice interval and a later interval (postdevice) that was an average of 1.8 yr after the subjects received their respective devices. The subjects' vowel productions were judged for accuracy in matching an imitative model and for correctness of vowel features (height and place). Within-group analyses were completed to determine if vowel production scores improved over the course of the study for each device group. Between group comparisons were performed to examine differences in mean scores at each interval. RESULTS: Before receiving their multichannel devices, the two groups of subjects demonstrated similar imitative vowel production skills. After an average of 1.8 yr of device use, the cochlear implant subjects demonstrated significantly improved production of diphthongs and all vowel categories except low vowels. The TactAid 7 subjects demonstrated significant improvement only in the production of diphthongs. Thus, cochlear implant recipients' vowel production skills were found to be significantly better than those of the TactAid 7 users after a comparable amount of device experience. CONCLUSIONS: The vowel production gains of the cochlear implant subjects were similar in amount to those noted in other studies of children who use the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant and further confirm the potential of this device for improved speech production in prelingually deafened children. The differences between the performance of the two groups demonstrate that vowel production skills improved to a greater degree through use of a multichannel cochlear implant than through use of the TactAid 7.
Wenonah Campbell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Spoken word recognition development in children with residual hearing using cochlear implants and hearing AidS in opposite ears.
Ear and Hearing, 2005Co-Authors: Rachael Frush Holt, Karen Iler Kirk, Laurie S Eisenberg, Amy S Martinez, Wenonah CampbellAbstract:Objective: With broadening candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation, a greater number of pediatric candidates have usable residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears. This population potentially stands to benefit from continued use of conventional amplification in their nonimplanted ears. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate whether children with residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears benefit from bilateral use of cochlear implants and hearing Aids and to investigate the time course of adaptation to combined use of the devices together. Design: Pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe sensorineural hearing loss in their nonimplanted ears served as participants. Ten children continued to use hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears after cochlear implantation; 12 children used their cochlear implants exclusively. Participants were tested longitudinally on spoken word recognition measures at 6-month intervals. The children who continued wearing hearing Aids were tested in three Sensory Aid conditions: cochlear implants alone, hearing Aids alone, and cochlear implants in conjunction with hearing Aids. The children who did not continue hearing Aid use were tested after surgery in their only Aided condition, cochlear implant alone. Results: The results suggest that children with severe hearing loss who continued using hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears benefited from combining the acoustic input received from a hearing Aid with the input received from a cochlear implant, particularly in background noise. However, this benefit emerged with experience. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that it is appropriate to encourage pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe hearing loss to continue wearing an appropriately fitted hearing Aid in the nonimplanted ear to maximally benefit from bilateral stimulation. (Ear & Hearing 2005;26;82S–91S)
-
Spoken word recognition development in children with residual hearing using cochlear implants and hearing AidS in opposite ears.
Ear and hearing, 2005Co-Authors: Rachael Frush Holt, Karen Iler Kirk, Laurie S Eisenberg, Amy S Martinez, Wenonah CampbellAbstract:With broadening candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation, a greater number of pediatric candidates have usable residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears. This population potentially stands to benefit from continued use of conventional amplification in their nonimplanted ears. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate whether children with residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears benefit from bilateral use of cochlear implants and hearing Aids and to investigate the time course of adaptation to combined use of the devices together. Pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe sensorineural hearing loss in their nonimplanted ears served as participants. Ten children continued to use hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears after cochlear implantation; 12 children used their cochlear implants exclusively. Participants were tested longitudinally on spoken word recognition measures at 6-month intervals. The children who continued wearing hearing Aids were tested in three Sensory Aid conditions: cochlear implants alone, hearing Aids alone, and cochlear implants in conjunction with hearing Aids. The children who did not continue hearing Aid use were tested after surgery in their only Aided condition, cochlear implant alone. The results suggest that children with severe hearing loss who continued using hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears benefited from combining the acoustic input received from a hearing Aid with the input received from a cochlear implant, particularly in background noise. However, this benefit emerged with experience. Our findings suggest that it is appropriate to encourage pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe hearing loss to continue wearing an appropriately fitted hearing Aid in the nonimplanted ear to maximally benefit from bilateral stimulation.
Rachael Frush Holt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
family environment in children with hearing Aids and cochlear implants associations with spoken language psychosocial functioning and cognitive development
Ear and Hearing, 2020Co-Authors: Rachael Frush Holt, David B Pisoni, Jessica Beer, William G Kronenberger, Kaylah Lalonde, Lindsay MulinaroAbstract:OBJECTIVES To examine differences in family environment and associations between family environment and key speech, language, and cognitive outcomes in samples of children with normal hearing and deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children who use hearing Aids and cochlear implants. DESIGN Thirty families of children with normal hearing (n = 10), hearing Aids (n = 10), or cochlear implants (n = 10) completed questionnaires evaluating executive function, social skills, and problem behaviors. Children's language and receptive vocabulary were evaluated using standardized measures in the children's homes. In addition, families were administered a standardized in-home questionnaire and observational assessment regarding the home environment. RESULTS Family environment overall was similar across hearing level and Sensory Aid, although some differences were found on parental responsivity and physical environment. The level of supportiveness and enrichment within family relationships accounted for much of the relations between family environment and the psychosocial and neurocognitive development of DHH children. In contrast, the availability of objects and experiences to stimulate learning in the home was related to the development of spoken language. CONCLUSIONS Whereas broad characteristics of the family environments of DHH children may not differ from those of hearing children, variability in family functioning is related to DHH children's at-risk speech, language, and cognitive outcomes. Results support the importance of further research to clarify and explain these relations, which might suggest novel methods and targets of family-based interventions to improve developmental outcomes.
-
Assessing toddlers’ speech-sound discrimination
International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology, 2012Co-Authors: Rachael Frush Holt, Kaylah LalondeAbstract:Abstract Objective Valid and reliable methods for assessing speech perception in toddlers are lacking in the field, leading to conspicuous gaps in understanding how speech perception develops and limited clinical tools for assessing Sensory Aid benefit in toddlers. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate speech-sound discrimination in toddlers using modifications to the Change/No-Change procedure [1] . Methods Normal-hearing 2- and 3-year-olds’ discrimination of acoustically dissimilar (“easy”) and similar (“hard”) speech-sound contrasts were evaluated in a combined repeated measures and factorial design. Performance was measured in d ′. Effects of contrast difficulty and age were examined, as was test-retest reliability, using repeated measures ANOVAs, planned post hoc tests, and correlation analyses. Results The easy contrast ( M = 2.53) was discriminated better than the hard contrast ( M = 1.72) across all ages ( p M = 3.13) discriminated the contrasts better than youngest ( M = 1.04; p M = 2.20; p = .037), who in turn discriminated the contrasts better than the youngest children ( p = .010). Test-retest reliability was excellent ( r = .886, p Conclusions The modifications implemented resulted, at least preliminarily, in a procedure that is reliable and sensitive to contrast difficulty and age in this young group of children, suggesting that these modifications are appropriate for this age group. With further development, the procedure holds promise for use in clinical populations who are believed to have core deficits in rapid phonological encoding, such as children with hearing loss or specific language impairment, children who are struggling to read, and second-language learners.
-
Spoken word recognition development in children with residual hearing using cochlear implants and hearing AidS in opposite ears.
Ear and Hearing, 2005Co-Authors: Rachael Frush Holt, Karen Iler Kirk, Laurie S Eisenberg, Amy S Martinez, Wenonah CampbellAbstract:Objective: With broadening candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation, a greater number of pediatric candidates have usable residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears. This population potentially stands to benefit from continued use of conventional amplification in their nonimplanted ears. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate whether children with residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears benefit from bilateral use of cochlear implants and hearing Aids and to investigate the time course of adaptation to combined use of the devices together. Design: Pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe sensorineural hearing loss in their nonimplanted ears served as participants. Ten children continued to use hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears after cochlear implantation; 12 children used their cochlear implants exclusively. Participants were tested longitudinally on spoken word recognition measures at 6-month intervals. The children who continued wearing hearing Aids were tested in three Sensory Aid conditions: cochlear implants alone, hearing Aids alone, and cochlear implants in conjunction with hearing Aids. The children who did not continue hearing Aid use were tested after surgery in their only Aided condition, cochlear implant alone. Results: The results suggest that children with severe hearing loss who continued using hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears benefited from combining the acoustic input received from a hearing Aid with the input received from a cochlear implant, particularly in background noise. However, this benefit emerged with experience. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that it is appropriate to encourage pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe hearing loss to continue wearing an appropriately fitted hearing Aid in the nonimplanted ear to maximally benefit from bilateral stimulation. (Ear & Hearing 2005;26;82S–91S)
-
Spoken word recognition development in children with residual hearing using cochlear implants and hearing AidS in opposite ears.
Ear and hearing, 2005Co-Authors: Rachael Frush Holt, Karen Iler Kirk, Laurie S Eisenberg, Amy S Martinez, Wenonah CampbellAbstract:With broadening candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation, a greater number of pediatric candidates have usable residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears. This population potentially stands to benefit from continued use of conventional amplification in their nonimplanted ears. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate whether children with residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears benefit from bilateral use of cochlear implants and hearing Aids and to investigate the time course of adaptation to combined use of the devices together. Pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe sensorineural hearing loss in their nonimplanted ears served as participants. Ten children continued to use hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears after cochlear implantation; 12 children used their cochlear implants exclusively. Participants were tested longitudinally on spoken word recognition measures at 6-month intervals. The children who continued wearing hearing Aids were tested in three Sensory Aid conditions: cochlear implants alone, hearing Aids alone, and cochlear implants in conjunction with hearing Aids. The children who did not continue hearing Aid use were tested after surgery in their only Aided condition, cochlear implant alone. The results suggest that children with severe hearing loss who continued using hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears benefited from combining the acoustic input received from a hearing Aid with the input received from a cochlear implant, particularly in background noise. However, this benefit emerged with experience. Our findings suggest that it is appropriate to encourage pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe hearing loss to continue wearing an appropriately fitted hearing Aid in the nonimplanted ear to maximally benefit from bilateral stimulation.
Laurie S Eisenberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Assessing spoken word recognition in children who are deaf or hard of hearing: a translational approach.
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2012Co-Authors: Karen Iler Kirk, Laurie S Eisenberg, Lindsay Prusick, Brian F. French, Chad M. Gotch, Nancy M. YoungAbstract:Spoken word recognition tests have been part of the audiological assessment of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing for the last 60 years. Such tests have been used to assess the effects of hearing loss on spoken word recognition and speech perception, (Hudgins, Hawkins, Karling, & Stevens, 1947; Skinner, et al., 2002), to determine cochlear implant candidacy (Gifford, Dorman, Spahr, & Bacon, 2007; Kirk, 2000a), measure cochlear implant outcomes (Dorman, Gifford, Spahr, & McKarns, 2008; Eisenberg, Kirk, Martinez, Ying, & Miyamoto, 2004; Holt, Kirk, Eisenberg, Martinez, & Campbell, 2005) and to guide the development of an individual’s aural rehabilitation programs (Eisenberg, 2007; Mackersie, 2002). In research settings, listeners who are deaf or hard of hearing may be administered spoken word recognition tests to evaluate the effectiveness of signal processing strategies (Dorman, Loizou, Kemp, & Kirk, 2000; Firszt, Holden, Reeder, & Skinner, 2009; Gifford, Olund, & Dejong, 2011; Gifford, Shallop, & Peterson, 2008; Skinner, et al., 2002), to better understand perceptual processes that support spoken word recognition (Holt, Beer, Kronenberger, Pisoni, & Lalonde, 2012; Kirk, Pisoni, & Osberger, 1995; Krull, Choi, Kirk, Prusick, & French, 2010; Loebach, Bent, & Pisoni, 2008; Loebach & Pisoni, 2008) or to identify factors that contribute to individual variability (Desjardin, Ambrose, Martinez, & Eisenberg, 2009; Geers, 2006; Pisoni, Kronenberger, Roman, & Geers, 2011). Obviously, no one test can achieve all of these aims. Thus, the choice of spoken word recognition test(s) is dictated by the information one wishes to obtain. Our test development work originally was motivated by the observation that children with cochlear implants performed poorly on traditional tests of open-set word recognition despite the fact that parents reported their children could understand some speech through listening alone. We hypothesized that traditional tests, such as the Phonetically Balanced Kindergarten Word List (PBK) (Haskins, 1949), included vocabulary that was unfamiliar to children who are deaf or hard of hearing due to the constraints imposed by phonetic balancing of test items. Furthermore, we noted some shortcomings with traditional spoken word recognition tests. First, most tests used stimuli produced by one talker in carefully articulated speech. Such tests, in which acoustic variability is highly constrained, may not accurately reflect spoken word recognition abilities under more natural listening situations. Increasing stimulus variability by introducing multiple talkers or varying speaking rate reduces spoken word recognition performance in listeners with normal hearing (Mullenix, Pisoni, & Martin, 1989; Nygaard, Sommers, & Pisoni, 1992; Sommers, Nygaard, & Pisoni, 1994) and in listeners who are deaf or hard of hearing (Kaiser, Kirk, Lachs, & Pisoni, 2003; Kirk, 2000b; Kirk, Pisoni, & Miyamoto, 1997). Secondly, although most traditional clinical tests yield descriptive information about spoken word recognition, they reveal little about the underlying perceptual and cognitive processes employed by listeners who are deaf or hard of hearing. Finally, most tradional tests utilized an auditory-only presentation format that might not adequately characterize the performance of listeners who are deaf or hard of hearing. For example, although some adults and children with Sensory Aids demonstrate substantial auditory-only word recognition, others obtain high levels of speech understanding only when auditory and visual speech cues are available (Bergeson, Pisoni, & Davis, 2003; Hay-McCutcheon, Pisoni, & Kirk, 2005; Kaiser, et al., 2003). Furthermore, the ability to combine and integrate auditory and visual speech information has been found to be an important predictor of speech perception benefit with a Sensory Aid (Bergeson & Pisoni, 2004; Bergeson, Pisoni, & Davis, 2005; Lachs, Pisoni, & Kirk, 2001b) and thus has important implications for understanding the underlying representation and processing of speech in listeners who use these devices. We saw the need to take a new, translational approach to test development – one that builds upon a body of basic and clinical research concerning spoken word recognition by listeners with normal hearing or hearing loss. Over the last 15 years, we have created a series of word and sentence recognition tests. These measures are theoretically motivated by a model of spoken word recognition and also incorporate “real-world” stimulus variability in the form multiple talkers and presentation formats. The goal of this research is to enhance our ability to estimate real-world listening ability and to predict benefit from Sensory Aid use in children with varying degrees of hearing loss. Below we review our past and current test development activities.
-
Spoken word recognition development in children with residual hearing using cochlear implants and hearing AidS in opposite ears.
Ear and Hearing, 2005Co-Authors: Rachael Frush Holt, Karen Iler Kirk, Laurie S Eisenberg, Amy S Martinez, Wenonah CampbellAbstract:Objective: With broadening candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation, a greater number of pediatric candidates have usable residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears. This population potentially stands to benefit from continued use of conventional amplification in their nonimplanted ears. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate whether children with residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears benefit from bilateral use of cochlear implants and hearing Aids and to investigate the time course of adaptation to combined use of the devices together. Design: Pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe sensorineural hearing loss in their nonimplanted ears served as participants. Ten children continued to use hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears after cochlear implantation; 12 children used their cochlear implants exclusively. Participants were tested longitudinally on spoken word recognition measures at 6-month intervals. The children who continued wearing hearing Aids were tested in three Sensory Aid conditions: cochlear implants alone, hearing Aids alone, and cochlear implants in conjunction with hearing Aids. The children who did not continue hearing Aid use were tested after surgery in their only Aided condition, cochlear implant alone. Results: The results suggest that children with severe hearing loss who continued using hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears benefited from combining the acoustic input received from a hearing Aid with the input received from a cochlear implant, particularly in background noise. However, this benefit emerged with experience. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that it is appropriate to encourage pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe hearing loss to continue wearing an appropriately fitted hearing Aid in the nonimplanted ear to maximally benefit from bilateral stimulation. (Ear & Hearing 2005;26;82S–91S)
-
Spoken word recognition development in children with residual hearing using cochlear implants and hearing AidS in opposite ears.
Ear and hearing, 2005Co-Authors: Rachael Frush Holt, Karen Iler Kirk, Laurie S Eisenberg, Amy S Martinez, Wenonah CampbellAbstract:With broadening candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation, a greater number of pediatric candidates have usable residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears. This population potentially stands to benefit from continued use of conventional amplification in their nonimplanted ears. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate whether children with residual hearing in their nonimplanted ears benefit from bilateral use of cochlear implants and hearing Aids and to investigate the time course of adaptation to combined use of the devices together. Pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe sensorineural hearing loss in their nonimplanted ears served as participants. Ten children continued to use hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears after cochlear implantation; 12 children used their cochlear implants exclusively. Participants were tested longitudinally on spoken word recognition measures at 6-month intervals. The children who continued wearing hearing Aids were tested in three Sensory Aid conditions: cochlear implants alone, hearing Aids alone, and cochlear implants in conjunction with hearing Aids. The children who did not continue hearing Aid use were tested after surgery in their only Aided condition, cochlear implant alone. The results suggest that children with severe hearing loss who continued using hearing Aids in their nonimplanted ears benefited from combining the acoustic input received from a hearing Aid with the input received from a cochlear implant, particularly in background noise. However, this benefit emerged with experience. Our findings suggest that it is appropriate to encourage pediatric cochlear implant recipients with severe hearing loss to continue wearing an appropriately fitted hearing Aid in the nonimplanted ear to maximally benefit from bilateral stimulation.
