![]() Otol Neurotol 2008 29:179–182.Ĭhing TY, Day J, Dillon H, Gardner-Berry K, Hou S, Seeto M, et al. Speech perception in children with auditory neuropathy/dyssynchrony managed with either hearing aids or cochlear implants. Cochlear implantation in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. Teagle HF, Roush PA, Woodard JS, Hatch DR, Zdanski CJ, Buss E, Buchman CA. Speech perception and cortical event related potentials in children with auditory neuropathy. Rance G, Cone-Wesson B, Wunderlich J, Dowell R. Cochlear implantation in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder: long-term outcomes. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 2007 127:36–43.īreneman AI, Gifford RH, Dejong MD. Cochlear implantation in children with auditory neuropathy: outcomes and rationale. Jeong S-W, Kim L-S, Kim B-Y, Bae W-Y, Kim J-R. Cochlear implants in five cases of auditory neuropathy: postoperative findings and progress. Shallop JK, Peterson A, Facer GW, Fabry LB, Driscoll CL. Children with ANSD fitted with hearing aids applying the AAA Pediatric Amplification Guideline: current practice and outcomes. Walker E, McCreery R, Spratford M, Roush P. Cortical maturation and behavioral outcomes in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. Auditory neuropathy: endocochlear lesion or temporal processing impairment? Implications for diagnosis and management. Vlastarakos PV, Nikolopoulos TP, Tavoulari E, Papacharalambous G, Korres S. Auditory neuropathy/dys-synchrony and its perceptual consequences. Como, Italy: Guidelines Development Conference at National Health Service 2008. Paper presented at the Seminars in Hearing. Identification of auditory neuropathy in infants and children. Longitudinal P1 recording is recommended in the comprehensive audiological test battery in ANSD population using temporally modified speech stimuli. They showed evidence of normal central auditory maturation and progress in auditory skill development. ConclusionĪround 50% of ANSD children demonstrated benefit from amplification. The IT-MAIS scores negatively correlated with the P1-CAEP latency in the two evaluation sessions and positively correlated with the age of hearing aid fitting. The mean IT-MAIS scores was initially 45.5 (☒0) in the ANSD group and 79 (☙) in the SNHL group and increased after 6 months in both groups. Children with absent responses persisted to have absent responses. At 6-month evaluation, the P1-CAEP latencies improved equally in the ANSD and SNHL groups. The latency of P1 was prolonged in both groups compared with the normal hearing loss group. Only one child from the SNHL group did not show P1-CAEP responses to the ‘da’ stimulus. In the initial evaluation, 80% of ANSD children showed P1 response to the ‘ba’ stimulus and 87% of children to the ‘da’ stimulus. The P1-CAEPs were elicited using the temporally modified synthetic ‘ba’ and ‘da’ syllables. Verification of hearing aids was carried out twice with 6 months of interval and included evaluation of aided sound field and P1-CAEP, and evaluation using the Arabic version of the Infant Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (IT-MAIS). The SNHL group was closely matched to the ANSD group. The ANSD group had a mean age of 48.2 (☒9.4) months and included children with moderate-to-severe hearing loss, a history of bilateral hearing aid use for at least 6 months, and absence of comorbid disorders. ![]() ![]() Study designįorty-five children were divided into three groups: the ANSD group ( n=15), the sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) group ( n=15), and the normal hearing group ( n=15). The aim of this study was to explore the outcome of hearing aid amplification in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) using speech P1 cortical auditory evoked potential (P1-CAEP).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |