Search

To address the question of whether, on a population level, early detection and amplification improve outcomes of children with hearing impairment.All families of children who were born between 2002 and 2007, and who presented for hearing services below 3 years of age at Australian Hearing pediatric centers in New South Wales, Victoria, and Southern Queensland were invited to participate in a prospective study on outcomes. Children's speech, language, functional, and social outcomes were assessed at 3 years of age, using a battery of age-appropriate tests. Demographic information relating to the child, family, and educational intervention was solicited through the use of custom-designed questionnaires. Audiological data were collected from the national database of Australian Hearing and records held at educational intervention agencies for children. Regression analysis was used to investigate the effects of each of 15 predictor variables, including age of amplification, on outcomes.Four hundred and fifty-one children enrolled in the study, 56% of whom received their first hearing aid fitting before 6 months of age. On the basis of clinical records, 44 children (10%) were diagnosed with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. There were 107 children (24%) reported to have additional disabilities. At 3 years of age, 317 children (70%) were hearing aid users and 134 children (30%) used cochlear implants. On the basis of parent reports, about 71% used an aural/oral mode of communication, and about 79% used English as the spoken language at home. Children's performance scores on standardized tests administered at 3 years of age were used in a factor analysis to derive a global development factor score. On average, the global score of hearing-impaired children was more than 1 SD below the mean of normal-hearing children at the same age. Regression analysis revealed that five factors, including female gender, absence of additional disabilities, less severe hearing loss, higher maternal education, and (for children with cochlear implants) earlier age of switch-on were associated with better outcomes at the 5% significance level. Whereas the effect of age of hearing aid fitting on child outcomes was weak, a younger age at cochlear implant switch-on was significantly associated with better outcomes for children with cochlear implants at 3 years of age.Fifty-six percent of the 451 children were fitted with hearing aids before 6 months of age. At 3 years of age, 134 children used cochlear implants and the remaining children used hearing aids. On average, outcomes were well below population norms. Significant predictors of child outcomes include: presence/absence of additional disabilities, severity of hearing loss, gender, maternal education, together with age of switch-on for children with cochlear implants.

Objectives Difficulty in understanding speech in background noise is frequently reported by hearing-impaired people despite well-fitted amplification. Understanding speech in the presence of background noise involves segregating the various auditory stimuli into distinct streams using cues such as pitch characteristics, spatial location of speakers, and contextual information. One possible cause of listening difficulties in noise is reduced spatial-processing ability. Previous attempts to investigate spatial processing in hearing-impaired people have often been confounded by inadequate stimulus audibility. The present research aimed to investigate the effects of hearing impairment and aging on spatial-processing ability. The effect of cognitive ability on spatial processing was also explored. In addition, the relationship between spatial-processing ability and self-report measures of listening difficulty was examined to investigate how much effect spatial-processing ability has in real-world situations. Design Eighty participants aged between 7 and 89 years took part in the study. Participants' hearing thresholds ranged from within normal limits to a moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss. All participants had English as their first language and no reported learning disabilities. The study sample included both hearing aid users and non-hearing aid users. Spatial-processing ability was assessed with a modified version of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences test (LiSN-S). The LiSN-S was modified to incorporate a prescribed gain amplifier that amplified the target and distracting stimulus according to the National Acoustic Laboratories-Revised Profound (NAL-RP) prescription. In addition, participants aged 18 years and above completed the Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status examination and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities questionnaire. Participants aged under 18 years completed the Listening Inventory for Education questionnaire. Results Spatial-processing ability, as measured by the spatial advantage measure of the LiSN-S, was negatively affected by hearing impairment. Aging was not significantly correlated with spatial-processing ability. No significant relationship was found between cognitive ability and spatial processing. Self-reported listening difficulty in children, as measured with the Listening Inventory for Education, and spatial-processing ability were not correlated. Self-reported listening difficulty in adults, as measured by the Speech, Spatial and Qualities questionnaire, was significantly correlated with spatial-processing ability. Conclusions All hearing-impaired people will have a spatial processing deficit of some degree. This should be given due consideration when counseling patients in regard to realistic expectations of how they will perform in background noise. Further research is required into potential remediation for spatial-processing deficits and the cause of these deficits.