retrospectively, poor hearing in noise seemed to preclude strong ageappropriate language acquisition by auditory eavesdropping in the youngchildren.They seemed to be either falling behind or simply not catching upto their normal hearing peers while they used aids.All but the first
of our 77 patients seen between 1982 and 2008 wereoffered hearing aids but most did not use them for more than a 30- to 60-day trial period. All of the aids accepted were fit with real ear measures toNAL or DSL criteria whenever possible, although often we could not be sureof the stability and meaningfulness of the audiogram.In analyzing all the collective data retrospectively from all the clinics whoparticipated, we found that only 5 hearing aid users reached ageappropriate language proficiency with this approach. Rance et al. (2008 )and Deltenre et al. (1999 ) report better hearing aid results based onimproved speech discrimination performance in quiet (See also Berlin,with Rance et al, 2007) and at present we have only conjecture based onhealth care system differences and different criteria for“success”to explainthe differences in our observations.There are data in the literature that hearing aids have generally not beenuseful in adults with ANSD (Deltenre et al., 1999; Rance, 2005) but are of value in children. These adult ANSD patients seem to have widespread“dead zones”in the cochlea (Moore, 2004). In fact we believe that ANSDmay represent a special form of dead zone — perhaps completely orpartially penetrating the inner hair cells and auditory nerve fibers(Amatuzzi et al., 2003; Starr et al., 2008).
Our hearing aid data do not match those data reported from othercountries where hearing aids and rehabilitation services, as well ascochlear implants, are supplied free of charge to all hearing impairedpatients (Deltenre et al., 1999; Rance, 2005; Berlin et al., 2007). Whetherthe patients in other countries continue to use their hearing aidsthroughout life and have age-appropriate language is not yet clear. Ourdata base appears to have the longest time-span (17 years since our firsthearing aid attempt) over which to make such a determination regardinglanguage performance. Hearing aids have not appeared generallypromising to facilitate normal language age development with our 7-10year overview. Many patients reported in the literature have shownimproved audiological sensitivity, and in some cases improved speechdiscrimination for single syllable words in quiet etc. But the data do notshow that the majority of children who showed these audiologicalimprovements in quiet, developed age-appropriate language as measuredby speech-language pathologists.By contrast, cochlear implants have been efficient in supportingage-appropriate language development (Shallop et al., 2001;Peterson et al., 2003).Because our data base is affected by our health care system and theoptional choice of our colleagues to send us the results from their patients,we (Berlin, Morlet and Hood) hope to set up and maintain the data base onan internet site in an easily accessible format.Thus, we plan to control thedata base so that only data from bona fide ANSD patients will be includedbut from all available health care systems, and not just the USA.This
Hearing Aid Success based on acquisition of normal language age. Number of Children, birth to 12
1 He had a normal pure tone audiogram, no clinical complaints, and was a 12 year old“normal”with no ABR He was a volunteer in an ABR study that was designed to outline normal latencies and amplitudes invarious age groups.
Too SoontoTellSlow orUncertainGoodSuccess,InteractiveUse
Success with Cochlear Implants