Speech Perception Outcomes in Children With Single-Sided Deafness Receiving Unilateral Cochlear Implantation Compared to Bimodal Device Users
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (1) assess the effects of residual hearing in the acoustic hearing (AH) ear on speech perception outcomes with ongoing unilateral cochlear implant (CI) use in children and (2) investigate factors related to hearing history that might affect these outcomes. Children with single-sided deafness (SSD) were compared to peers with hearing loss (HL) in the AH ear contralateral to their CI. DESIGN: In total, 185 children who received a unilateral CI after limited durations of severe to profound HL {median (interquartile range [IQR]) = 1.9 (1.0 to 2.9) years} were included in this study. Of these, 43 (23.2%) had SSD and 142 (76.8%) used a contralateral hearing aid for mild to moderately-severe HL (PTA median [IQR] = 48.8 [42.5 to 63.8] dB HL, n = 39 [21.1%]) or severe to profound HL (PTA median [IQR] = 80.0 [72.1 to 85.5] dB HL, n = 103 [55.7%]) (bimodal device users). Median [IQR] age at implantation was 5.3 [3.1 to 10.6] years. Speech perception was measured in quiet (n = 182 children, average of 2.8 test sessions/child) and in co-located speech-weighted noise (+10 dB SNR) (n = 109 children, average of 2.0 test sessions/child) using word recognition tests. Spatial release of masking was measured to assess spatial separation benefits (n = 78 children, average of 1.6 tests/child). RESULTS: Speech perception in the AH ear was better in children with SSD than bimodal device users in quiet ( p < 0.001), but group differences were smaller in noise, reflecting significantly reduced scores in the SSD group in noise compared to quiet ( p < 0.001, mean [SD] difference = 27.3 [2.6] rationalized arcsine units [RAU]). Speech perception scores when using the CI-alone were similar between the three groups in quiet and noise ( p > 0.05). In quiet, speech perception was asymmetric with better scores for the AH ear for children with SSD (mean [SD] = 30.7 [29.1] RAU) and for the CI ear for bimodal device users (mean [±SD] = -5.25 [±21.7] RAU for mild to moderately-severe and -27.2 [±30.9] RAU for severe to profound HL), and the bilateral benefit was the smallest for children with SSD ( p < 0.01). In noise, however, these group differences were only significant between children with SSD and those with a severe to profound HL in the AH ear ( p = 0.02 for interaural asymmetry, p = 0.03 for bilateral benefit). In addition, asymmetry toward the AH ear decreased and bilateral benefit increased in quiet with shorter durations of deprivation ( p < 0.01) and longer CI experience ( p = 0.01), but these predictors had no effect in noise. Last, aural preference, measured by spatial release of masking, was consistent with interaural asymmetry in speech perception in quiet ( p = 0.01). Aural preference toward the AH ear was larger in the SSD than bimodal devices groups ( p < 0.01) and for children with post-lingual onset of deafness using a left rather than right CI ( p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of cochlear implantation are evident both for children with SSD and bimodal device users, and scores were not affected by the degree of residual hearing in noise. These benefits of bilateral hearing are most pronounced for children with shorter durations of deprivation in either ear.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».