Receptive speech in early implanted children later diagnosed with autism

Cochlear Implantation in Children with Additional Disabilities: A Systematic Review

This study examines the last 10 years of medical literature on the benefits of cochlear implantation in children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) with additional disabilities. The most recent literature concerning cochlear implants (CIs) in DHH children with additional disabilities was systematically explored through PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 2012 to July 2023. Our two-stage search strategy selected a total of 61 articles concerning CI implantation in children with several forms of additional disabilities: autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, visual impairment, motor disorders, developmental delay, genetic syndromes, and intellectual disability. Overall, many children with additional disabilities benefit from CIs by acquiring greater environmental sound awareness. This, in turn, improves non-verbal communication and adaptive skills, with greater possibilities to relate to others and to be connected with the environment. Instead, despite some improvement, expressive language tends to develop more slowly and to a lesser extent compared to children affected by hearing loss only. Further studies are needed to better appreciate the specificities of each single disability and to personalize interventions, not restricting the analysis to auditory and language skills, but rather applying or developing cross-culturally validated instruments able to reliably assess the developmental trajectory and the quality of life of DHH children with additional disabilities before and after CI.

Impact of Sociodemographic Disparities on Language Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation in a Diverse Pediatric Cohort

OBJECTIVE

We examined how sociodemographic and audiologic factors affect receptive and expressive language outcomes in children with cochlear implantation.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A hearing loss (HL) clinic at a tertiary center.

METHODS

Sociodemographic variables, HL characteristics, age at implantation, and receptive language scores (Preschool Language Scale and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals) were collected from patients with congenital HL who received their first implant by 4 years old after January 1, 2007. t Tests, linear regression, Mann-Whitney, Cohen's d, and mediation analysis were used for descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing.

RESULTS

Among 79 patients, 42 (53%) were females, 44 (56%) under-represented minorities, and 56 (71%) had public insurance. At least 1 year after implantation, the median receptive language score was 69 (range 50-117). Females (p = .005), having private insurance (p = .00001), having a Cochlear Implant Profile score below 4 (p = .0001), and receiving their implant at or before 12 months of age (p = .0009) were significantly associated with improved receptive language outcomes. Insurance type had a significant effect on receptive language outcomes, independent from age at first implantation (total effect: coef = -13.00, p = .02; direct effect: coef = -12.26, p = .03; indirect effect: coef = -0.75, p = .47). Sociodemographic variables had large effect sizes, with the Cochlear Implant Profile score having the largest effect size (d = 1.3).

CONCLUSION

Sociodemographic factors have a large impact on receptive language outcomes. Public insurance is associated with worse receptive language, not mediated by later age at implantation, suggesting that other factors primarily impact language outcomes in publicly insured children with cochlear implants.

Cochlear Implantation in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine outcomes following cochlear implantation (CI) in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

DATABASES REVIEWED

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrial.gov.

METHODS

The review was performed according to the PRISMA statement. Primary outcomes measures were changes in speech perception and speech production scores. Secondary outcome measures included communication mode, device use, parental recommendation of implant, postoperative hyperacusis, and quality of life measures. Pooled analysis of outcomes was performed if possible.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies reported on 159 children with ASD. There were improvements in speech perception in 78% of cases and in speech expression in 63% of cases, though the extent of this improvement was variable. Seventy-four percent of children with ASD and CI are nonoral communicators. Intermittent/nonuse rate was 31%. Hearing outcomes are worse compared to children with other disabilities. The vast majority of parents would recommend CI based on their experiences.

CONCLUSION

Outcome in children with ASD and CI are highly variable and significantly poorer compared to non-ASD children. Despite this, most parents report positive experiences and the evidence supports the use of CI in children with ASD.

Cochlear implantation in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Outcomes and implant fitting characteristics

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding fitting parameters and receptive and expressive language development in cochlear-implanted children (CCI) with profound sensorineural hearing loss (SHL) who are diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The aim of the study was to evaluate a group of ASD CCI users in order to describe their ASD clinical features and CCI outcomes; report on the average electrical charge requirements; and evaluate the possible correlations between electrical and psychophysical outcomes with ASD characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicentre observational study of 22 ASD children implanted in four cochlear implant (CI) centers. Data concerning profound SHL diagnosis, ASD diagnosis, CI timing and CI compliance were collected. Sound Field (SF) was assessed through repeated behavioural measurements. Categories of Auditory Perception (CAP) and Categories of Language (CL) were used to evaluate speech perception and language skills at short (≤2 yrs), medium (5 yrs) and long term (>10 yrs) follow-up. Fitting parameters such as comfortable thresholds, pulse-width (pw, μsec) and clinical units converted into units of charge/phase were collected. The diagnosis of ASD was acquired by the referral neuropsychiatric department and severity was assessed through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) and the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS).

RESULTS

At the final follow-up session the median SF threshold for CI outcomes was 30 dB HL (min 15 - max 60). CAP score was extremely variable: 45.5% showed no improvement over time and only 22% of children reached CAP scores of 5-7. CL 45.5% showed no improvement over time and score was 1-2 in the majority of ASD children (72.7%), while only 18.2% reached the highest level of language skills. There were no statistically significant differences at each follow-up between subjects with or without comorbidities. CAP and CL were inversely correlated with DSM-V A and B domains, corresponding to lower speech and language scores in children with more severe ASD symptoms, and maintained their correlation at mid and long follow-ups whilst controlling for age at CI. Electrical charge requirements did not correlate with SF or age at implant but did inversely correlate with ASD severity. With regards to CI compliance: only 13.6% children (3) with severe DSM-V A/B levels and CARS score were partial/intermittent users.

CONCLUSION

The present study is a targeted contribution to the current literature to support clinical procedures for CI fitting and audiological follow-up in children with ASD. The findings indicate that the outcomes of CI use and the fitting procedures are both influenced by the severity of the ASD symptoms rather than the demographic variables or associated disorders.

Cochlear implant in patients with autistic spectrum disorder-a systematic review

Introduction

In cases of autism spectrum disorders with severe to profound hearing loss, cochlear implant is a therapeutic option.

Objective

To identify evidence in the scientific literature that the cochlear implant brings benefits to people with autism spectrum disorders with associated hearing loss.

Methods

Systematic review of the literature based on the criteria recommended by PRISMA. The population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, study design, PICOS strategy, was used to define the eligibility criteria. The studies that met the inclusion criteria for this second stage were included in a qualitative synthesis. Each type of study was analyzed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute's risk of bias assessment through the critical checklist for cohort studies, prevalence studies and critical criteria and case reports.

Results

Four hundred and eighty-four articles were found in eight databases and 100 in the gray literature, mentioning the relationship between cochlear implants in patients with autism spectrum disorder and hearing loss. Twelve articles were read in full and 7 were selected for qualitative analysis in this systematic review. All seven articles were analyzed on the critical evaluation checklist. Four articles had a low risk of bias and three articles had a moderate risk of bias. In this study, were included 66 patients with autism spectrum disorder and hearing loss who received cochlear implant.

Conclusion

This systematic review indicates that a cochlear implant can bring benefits to autism spectrum disorder patients with associated deafness.

Looking back and moving forward: A scoping review of research on preschool autism interventions in the field of speech-language pathology

Background & Aims

Speech-language pathology services are frequently accessed by families of children who have suspected or diagnosed autism. This is expected given that social communication differences are a core feature of autism. This review looked broadly at the state of research in the field of speech-language pathology and preschool autism interventions in order to identify the types of studies that could be used to inform the practices of speech-language pathologists (SLPs), and to identify gaps in the field so they can be addressed in future research. Specifically, we examined the extent of research conducted on interventions delivered (at least in part) by SLPs to preschool children with suspected or diagnosed autism, identified the range of skill development areas targeted within the studies, and explored the characteristics of the interventions (i.e., theoretical models underlying the programs, service delivery models, treatment dosage).

Methods

A scoping review of articles published between 1980 and 2019 was conducted using the five phases outlined by the Arksey and O'Malley framework: (a) articulating the research question; (b) identifying relevant studies; (c) selecting studies; (d) charting the data; and (e) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results.

Main Contribution/Results

A total of 114 studies met inclusion criteria with most published since 2010 and conducted within North America. Case study or single-subject study designs were the most frequently used. Interventions delivered solely by SLPs and by multiprofessional teams that included SLPs were relatively equally represented. Across the included studies, nine skill development areas were targeted, but interventions targeting social communication, language, and augmentative communication skills made up the vast majority of studies. There was relatively even distribution of interventions informed by child-centered, clinician-directed, and hybrid models. Explicit information detailing intervention characteristics (e.g., treatment dosage, professional training of clinicians delivering the intervention) was poorly reported in many studies. For those studies providing details, there was a great deal of variability in the nature of interventions (e.g., service delivery models, SLPs' role, dosage).

Conclusions

This review revealed that research in the area of autism interventions delivered, at least in part, by SLPs has markedly increased over the past 10 years. Still, there remains a need for more research, and greater transparency detailing the nature of the interventions being investigated. The research conducted to date captures the versatility of the SLP's role within preschool autism intervention. Improved reporting and studies with strong methodological rigor focused on capturing the complex and individualized nature of interventions are needed, as are intervention studies aligned with real-world community practice.

Implications

This review provides a comprehensive examination of the status of research on preschool interventions delivered to children with suspected or diagnosed autism within the field of speech-language pathology. Several directions for future research are provided, as are suggestions for improving the clinical applicability of results to further the development of effective, evidence-informed policy and practice in speech-language pathology.

Hearing and speech benefits of cochlear implantation in children: A review of the literature

Cochlear implantation is a safe and reliable treatment for children with severe to profound hearing loss. The primary benefit of these medical devices in children is the acquisition of hearing, which promotes development of spoken language. The present paper reviews published literature demonstrating predictive effects of a number of factors on acquisition of hearing development and speech recognition. Of the many variables that contribute to an individual child's development after implantation, age at implantation, the presence of medical comorbidities, social determinants of health, and the provision of bilateral versus unilateral hearing are those that can vary widely and have consistently shown clear impacts. Specifically, age of implantation is crucial to reduce effects of deafness on the developing auditory system and capture the remarkable plasticity of early development. Language development after cochlear implantation requires therapy emphasizing hearing and oral communication, education, and other support which can be influenced by known social determinants of health; specifically, outcomes in children decline with reductions in socioeconomic status and levels of parental education. Medical co-morbidities also slow rates of progress after cochlear implantation. On the other hand, benefits of implantation increase in children who are provided with access to hearing from both ears. In sum, cochlear implants promote development of hearing in children and the best outcomes are achieved by providing early access to sound in both ears. These benefits can be limited by known social determinants of health which restrict access to needed support and medical comorbidities which add further complexity in care and outcome.

Prelingual Deaf Children Treated With Cochlear Implant: Monitoring Performance With Percentiles

OBJECTIVES

To develop a percentile ranking system driven by speech recognition data obtained from different groups of patients treated with a cochlear implant to serve as a tool to monitor the progress of these patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Diagnosed with a bilateral, profound sensorineural hearing loss treated with a unilateral cochlear implant.

INTERVENTION

Diagnostic.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Six different percentiles (p) were classified taking into account the correlation between speech recognition outcome scores and age at implantation, with reference to the onset of hearing loss.

RESULTS

Four hundred sixteen prelingual patients were included. These subjects were divided into subgroups depending on age at implantation.Prelingual group, from the fifth year after implantation, p50 centered on the following percentages of correct words in each subgroup: 100, 94.6, 91.4, 91.0, 79.2, and 63.1% in children implanted under 12 months, 1, 2, 3, 4 to 6, 7 to 10 years, respectively. After a 12-year follow-up, a significant negative correlation between age at implantation and speech recognition was observed in both prelinguals (Rhos=-0.578, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

A percentile system was developed to monitor the postimplant progress of prelingual deaf implanted patients, with potential applications in patient follow-up and handling circumstances that may deteriorate results.