Elsevier

The Lancet

Volume 360, Issue 9331, 10 August 2002, Pages 483-485
The Lancet

Rapid Review
Paediatric cochlear implantation: prosthetic hearing and language development

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09679-4Get rights and content

Section snippets

Speech recognition

Open-set monosyllabic word-recognition is the most difficult test of speech recognition and is now the standard for reporting outcomes in implanted adults. Such tests exist for children, although there are questions about the age-appropriateness of test materials.5 The best measure for prelingually-deafened children is open-set monosyllabic word scores after sufficient implant experience and chronological age have accrued. In 34 prelingually deaf recipients of implants, phonetically-balanced

Language development

The ability of cochlear implants to serve as a physiological substrate for language development in children has been sharply questioned. Tomblin et al13 administered two tests of language achievement to 29 prelingually deaf children with at least 3 years of implant experience compared with comparably deaf children without implants. The implant recipients showed significant gains that progressively widened over 5 years of implant experience.

Similar results with a different test of English

Reading development

It has been said that prelingually deaf children routinely do not exceed a fourth-grade reading level.16 Enhancement of reading skills is arguably the single greatest achievement possible with a cochlear implant in a prelingually deaf child. 40 such children using measures of reading comprehension showed substantial gains compared with historical controls.17 The implanted children exceeded the fourth-grade barrier, and their reading-grade quotient (grade level achieved on test divided by years

Discussion

The best age for cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf children has been controversial since the practice began. Basic neuroscience suggests critical periods of development for all sensory systems and subsequently for speech and language.20 Thus the potential benefit of earlier implantation is to be expected. There is no surgical barrier to the implantation of infants and small children, although the procedure is technically more challenging in this group. The main concerns were about

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (28)

  • MJ Osberger

    Cochlear implantation in children under the age of two years: candidacy considerations

    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

    (1997)
  • GM O'Donoghue et al.

    Determinants of speech perception in children after cochlear implantation

    Lancet

    (2000)
  • AQ Summerfield et al.

    Paediatric cochlear implantation and health-technology assessment

    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol

    (1999)
  • RA Crouch

    Letting the deaf be deaf

    Hastings Center Rep

    (1997)
  • H Lane

    The mask of benevolence: disabling the deaf community

    (1999)
  • JT Rubinstein et al.

    Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria

    Am J Otol

    (1999)
  • SS Hehar et al.

    Surgery and functional outcomes in deaf children receiving cochlear implants before age 2 years

    Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

    (2002)
  • H Fryauf-Bertschy et al.

    Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: the influences of age at implant and length of device use

    J Speech Lang Hear Res

    (1997)
  • RS Tyler et al.

    Speech perception by prelingually deaf children after six years of cochlear implant use: effects of age at implantation

    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

    (2000)
  • RS Tyler et al.

    Pre-lingually deaf children can perform as well as post-lingually deaf adults using cochlear implants

    Coch Implants Int

    (2000)
  • SB Waltzman et al.

    Cochlear implantation in children younger than 2 years old

    Am J Otol

    (1998)
  • TP Nikolopoulos et al.

    Age at implantation: its importance in pediatric cochlear implantation

    Laryngoscope

    (1999)
  • N Tye-Murray et al.

    A critique of continuous discourse tracking as a test procedure

    J Speech Hear Disord

    (1988)
  • JB Tomblin et al.

    A comparison of language achievement in children with cochlear implants and children using hearing aids

    J Speech Lang Hear Res

    (1999)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text