Download PDF
Semin Hear 2010; 31(3): 203-218
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1262326
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Candidacy and Device Options: Personal Amplification Systems for School-Aged Children

Jace Wolfe1 , Erin C. Schafer2
  • 1Director of Audiology, Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
  • 2Assistant Professor, Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
08 September 2010 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Over the past 10 to 15 years, advances in personal hearing technology have allowed for a remarkable improvement in speech, language, auditory, and academic outcomes for children with all degrees of hearing loss. With contemporary technology, pediatric and educational audiologists should be able to achieve the stated goal in the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline to provide a signal that makes low-, moderate-, and high-level sounds audible and comfortable for the child while also providing a high sound quality across a variety of listening environments. This article discusses various types of personal hearing technology available for school-aged children including digital hearing aids, cochlear implants, bone-anchored hearing aids, and personal frequency-modulated devices. Candidacy guidelines will be discussed for each device, and device-specific features, such as signal-processing characteristics, that are beneficial for school-aged children will be addressed. Finally, case studies will be provided to demonstrate the decision-making process involved in selecting personal hearing technology for children with hearing loss.

KEYWORDS

Digital hearing aids - cochlear implants - bone-anchored hearing aids - personal FM devices

REFERENCES

  • 1 Bess F. Unilateral hearing loss in children.  Ear Hear. 1986;  7 14-19
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bess F, Tharpe A, Gibler A. Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: prevalence, educational performance, and functional health status.  Ear Hear. 1998;  17 1-11
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Cheffo S. Educational placement options for school-aged children with hearing loss. In: Madell J, Flexer C Pediatric Audiology: Diagnosis, Technology and Management. New York, NY; Thieme 2008: 168-182
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Geers A. Performance aspects of mainstreaming. In: Ross M Hearing Impaired Children in the Mainstream. Parkton, MD; York Press 1990
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Geers A E. Predictors of reading skill development in children with early cochlear implantation.  Ear Hear. 2003;  24(1 Suppl) 59S-68S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Robertson L. Literacy and Deafness: Listening and Spoken Language. San Diego, CA; Plural Publishing 2009
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Connor C M, Craig H K, Raudenbush S W, Heavner K, Zwolan T A. The age at which young deaf children receive cochlear implants and their vocabulary and speech-production growth: is there an added value for early implantation?.  Ear Hear. 2006;  27 628-644
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Eisenberg L S. Current state of knowledge: speech recognition and production in children with hearing impairment.  Ear Hear. 2007;  28 766-772
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hayes H, Geers A E, Treiman R, Moog J S. Receptive vocabulary development in deaf children with cochlear implants: achievement in an intensive auditory-oral educational setting.  Ear Hear. 2009;  30 128-135
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Moeller M P, Hoover B, Putman C et al.. Vocalizations of infants with hearing loss compared with infants with normal hearing: part I—phonetic development.  Ear Hear. 2007;  28 605-627
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Moeller M P, Hoover B, Putman C et al.. Vocalizations of infants with hearing loss compared with infants with normal hearing: part II—transition to words.  Ear Hear. 2007;  28 628-642
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Moeller M P, Tomblin J B, Yoshinaga-Itano C, Connor C M, Jerger S. Current state of knowledge: language and literacy of children with hearing impairment.  Ear Hear. 2007;  28 740-753
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Moog J S, Geers A E. Epilogue: major findings, conclusions and implications for deaf education.  Ear Hear. 2003;  24(1 Supp l) 121S-125S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Nikolopoulos T P, Dyar D, Archbold S, O'Donoghue G M. Development of spoken language grammar following cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf children.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;  130 629-633
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Freeman R. Psychosocial problems associated with childhood hearing impairment. In: Bradford L, Hardy W Hearing and Hearing Impairment. New York, NY; Grune and Stratton 2008
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Meadow K, Trybus R. Behavioral and emotional problems of deaf children: an overview. In: Bradford L, Hardy W Hearing and Hearing Impairment. New York, NY; Grune and Stratton 2008
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Nicholas J G, Geers A E. Personal, social, and family adjustment in school-aged children with a cochlear implant.  Ear Hear. 2003;  24(1Supp l) 69S-81S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Pediatric Amplification Guideline . Position statement of the American Academy of Audiology.  Audiology Today. 2004;  16 46-53
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Shallop J. Management of children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder: cochlear implants. In: Guidelines for Identification and Management of Infants and Young Children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder. Guidelines Development Conference at NHS 2008:33–34
    PubMed
  • 20 McKay S. Issues related to amplification for children with mild or unilateral hearing loss. In: National Workshop on Mild and Unilateral Hearing Loss: Workshop Proceedings. Breckenridge, CO; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2005: 20-21
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Reeve K. Amplification and family factors for children with mild and unilateral hearing impairment. In: National Workshop on Mild and Unilateral Hearing Loss: Workshop Proceedings. Breckenridge, CO; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2005: 20-21
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Tharpe A. Unilateral hearing loss in children: a mountain or a molehill?.  Hear J. 2007;  60 13-16
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 National Workshop on Mild and Unilateral Hearing Loss .Workshop Proceedings. Breckenridge, CO; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2005
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Guidelines for Identification and Management of Infants and Young Children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder .Guidelines Development Conference at NHS; 2008. 
    PubMed
  • 25 DeJonge R. Selecting and verifying hearing aid fittings for symmetrical hearing loss. In: Valente M Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. New York, NY; Thieme 1994: 180-206
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Gelfand S A, Silman S. Apparent auditory deprivation in children: implications of monaural versus binaural amplification.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1993;  4 313-318
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kuk F K. Maximum usable real-ear insertion gain with ten earmold designs.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1994;  5 44-51
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Kuk F K. Perceptual consequence of vents in hearing aids.  Br J Audiol. 1991;  25 163-169
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Painton S W. Objective measure of low-frequency amplification reduction in canal hearing aids with adaptive circuitry.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1993;  4 152-156
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Keidser G, Dillon H, Dyrlund O, Carter L, Hartley D. Preferred low- and high-frequency compression ratios among hearing aid users with moderately severe to profound hearing loss.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2007;  18 17-33
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Marriage J E, Moore B C, Stone M A, Baer T. Effects of three amplification strategies on speech perception by children with severe and profound hearing loss.  Ear Hear. 2005;  26 35-47
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Palmer C V, Grimes A M. Effectiveness of signal processing strategies for the pediatric population: a systematic review of the evidence.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;  16 505-514
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Kuk F. Fitting approaches for hearing aids with linear and nonlinear signal processing. In: Valente M, Hosford-Dun, Roeser R Audiology: Treatment. New York, NY; Thieme 2008: 179-197
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Flynn M C, Davis P B, Pogash R. Multiple-channel non-linear power hearing instruments for children with severe hearing impairment: long-term follow-up.  Int J Audiol. 2004;  43 479-485
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Dillon H. Hearing Aids. New York, NY; Thieme 2001: 118-158
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Banerjee S, Recker K, Paumen A. A tale of two feedback cancellers.  Hearing Review. 2006;  13 40-44
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Kuk F. Changing with the times: additional criteria for a good feedback cancellation algorithm.  Hearing Review. 2006;  13 38-48
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Chung K. Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part II. Feedback and occlusion effect reduction strategies, laser shell manufacturing processes, and other signal processing technologies.  Trends Amplif. 2004;  8 125-164
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Stelmachowicz P G, Pittman A L, Hoover B M, Lewis D E. Effect of stimulus bandwidth on the perception of /s/ in normal- and hearing-impaired children and adults.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;  110 2183-2190
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Mahaffey M. Life is on: SoundRecover: who, what, how?. Available at: http://www.audiologyonline.com/ceus/index.asp Accessed July 27, 2009
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Kuk F, Korhonen P, Peters H, Keenan D, Jessen A, Anderson H. Linear frequency transposition: extending the audibility of high-frequency information.  Hear Rev. 2006;  13 42-48
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Auriemmo J, Kuk F, Lau C et al.. Effect of linear frequency transposition on speech recognition and production of school-age children.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;  20 289-305
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Glista D, Scollie S, Bagatto M, Seewald R, Parsa V, Johnson A. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: clinical outcomes.  Int J Audiol. 2009;  48 632-644
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Wolfe J, Caraway T, John A, Schafer E, Nyffeler M. Study suggests that non-linear frequency compression helps children with moderate loss.  Hear J. 2010;  , In press
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Nozza R J, Rossman R N, Bond L C, Miller S L. Infant speech-sound discrimination in noise.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;  87 339-350
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Gravel J S, Fausel N, Liskow C, Chobot J. Children's speech recognition in noise using omni-directional and dual-microphone hearing aid technology.  Ear Hear. 1999;  20 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Kuk F K, Kollofski C, Brown S, Melum A, Rosenthal A. Use of a digital hearing aid with directional microphones in school-aged children.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;  10 535-548
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Wolfe J. Noise reduction technologies: are they appropriate for children?. Paper presented at: 5th Widex Congress of Pediatric Audiology 2008 Amsterdam, Netherlands;
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Dillon H, Ching T, Golding M. Hearing aids for infants and children. In: Madell J, Flexer C Pediatric Audiology: Diagnosis, Technology and Management. New York, NY; Thieme 2008: 168-182
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Lewis D, Eiten L. Hearing instrument selection and fitting in children. In: Valente M, Hosford-Dun, Roeser R Audiology: Treatment. New York, NY; Thieme 2008: 94-118
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Ricketts T A, Galster J. Head angle and elevation in classroom environments: implications for amplification.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;  51 516-525
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Ricketts T, Galster J, Tharpe A M. Directional benefit in simulated classroom environments.  Am J Audiol. 2007;  16 130-144
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Ricketts T, Dittberner A. Directional amplification for improved signal-to-noise ratio: strategies, measurements, and limitations. In: Valente M Hearing Aids: Standards, Options, and Limitations. 2nd Ed. New York, NY; Thieme 2002: 274-346
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Peeters H, Kuk F, Lau C C, Keenan D. Subjective and objective evaluation of noise management algorithms.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;  20 89-98
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Chung K. Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Part I. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms.  Trends Amplif. 2004;  8 83-124
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Davidson L S. Effects of stimulus level on the speech perception abilities of children using cochlear implants or digital hearing aids.  Ear Hear. 2006;  27 493-507
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Peters B R, Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Lake J. Importance of age and postimplantation experience on speech perception measures in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants.  Otol Neurotol. 2007;  28 649-657
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Wolfe J, Baker S, Caraway T et al.. One-year post-activation results for children who underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation at varying ages.  Otol Neurotol. 2007;  28 389-396
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Ching T, Incerti P, Hill M, van Wanrooy E. An overview of binaural advantages for children and adults who use binaural/bimodal hearing devices.  Audiol Neurootol. 2006;  11S 6-11
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Litovsky R, Johnstone P, Godar S. Benefits of bilateral cochlear implants and or hearing aids in children.  Int J Audiol. 2006;  45 78S-91S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Eisenberg L Clinical Management of Children with Cochlear Implants. San Diego, CA; Plural Publishing 2009
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 62 Christensen L, Dornhoffer J L. Bone-anchored hearing aids for unilateral hearing loss in teenagers.  Otol Neurotol. 2008;  29 1120-1122
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Christensen L, Richter G T, Dornhoffer J L. Update on bone-anchored hearing aids in pediatric patients with profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;  136 175-177
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 Valente M. Fitting options for adults patients with single sided deafness (SSD). Available at: http://www.audiologyonline.com/ceus/textcoursedetails.asp?class_id=6279 Accessed July 24, 2009
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar

Jace WolfePh.D. 

Director of Audiology, Hearts for Hearing Foundation

3525 NW 56th Street, Suite A-150, Oklahoma City, TX 73112

Email: jace.wolfe@heartsforhearing.org