Search

Lauren N Ayton,1– 3,* Karyn L Galvin,4,* Lauren Johansen,5 Fleur O’Hare,1,3 Emily R Shepard5 1Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia; 2Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology), University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia; 3Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 4Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia; 5UsherKids Australia, Mordialloc, VIC, Australia*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Lauren N Ayton, Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, 202 Berkeley Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia, Email layton@unimelb.edu.auBackground: Usher syndrome is the most common cause of deaf-blindness, affecting up to 1 in 6000 people. Multidisciplinary care is required to maximize outcomes for individuals and families. This study assessed awareness of Usher Syndrome amongst allied health clinicians who provide care related to the primarily affected senses of hearing and vision, ie, optometry, orthoptics and audiology.Methods: A prospective cross-sectional online survey of clinicians working in Australian university-affiliated clinics (7 optometry, 1 orthoptics and 4 audiology) was completed between September 2021 and January 2022. Questions were asked about the cause, common symptoms, and awareness of health professions who manage Usher syndrome.Results: The 27 audiologists, 40 optometrists, and 7 orthoptists who completed the survey included 53 females (71.6%), had an average age of 37 years (range 24– 70), and had an average duration of clinical experience of 13 years (range 1– 45 years). The majority of respondents correctly identified Usher syndrome as a genetic condition (86%), identified at least two of the affected senses (97%), and identified the progressive nature of the vision and hearing losses (> 90%). Awareness of vestibular dysfunction and its characteristics was low, as was knowledge of the key treatment roles that speech pathologists, genetic counsellors and geneticists play in the management of Usher Syndrome. The majority of respondents also did not identify important aspects of care within their own discipline.Conclusion: This study has shown that there is a need for targeted education to be delivered to hearing and vision care allied health clinicians to raise awareness of the vestibular impacts and aspects of vision loss experienced by people with Usher syndrome. This education needs to target the broad range of clinicians who have a key role in providing multidisciplinary care (including speech pathologists, geneticists, and genetic counsellors) and to identify the key aspects of good-quality multidisciplinary care.Keywords: deaf-blindness, optometry, audiology, orthoptics, genetics, physiotherapy

Background: Advancements in genetic testing have led to Usher syndrome now being diagnosed at a much earlier age than in the past, enabling the provision of early intervention and support to children and families. Despite these developments, anecdotal reports suggest there are substantial gaps in the services and supports provided to parents of children with Usher syndrome. The current study investigated the support needs of parents of children with Usher syndrome Type 1 when their child was aged 0 to 5 years., Method: Purposive sampling was used, and six semi-structured interviews were conducted with Australian parents of children with Usher syndrome, Type 1. Data was analysed using modified reflexive thematic analysis., Results: Four key themes were identified as being central to the support needs of parents of children with Usher syndrome aged 0 to 5 years. (1) Social Needs referred to parents' need for various sources of social support, (2) Informational Needs described the lack of information parents received regarding Usher syndrome from treating professionals, (3) Practical Needs included supports needed to assist parents in managing the day-to-day tasks of caring for a child with a disability, and (4) Emotional Needs represented the emotional support (both formal and informal) that parents needed to be a positive support to their child., Conclusions: Findings provide rich information for relevant support groups, policy makers, individual healthcare professionals, and professional governing bodies regarding the education of stakeholders and the development and implementation of best-practice treatment guidelines., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of audiologists to provide input into development of a smartphone application (app) to document the real-life listening difficulties and the listening environment of hearing aid candidates and users., Method: Two focus groups were conducted. Facilitators utilized a topic guide to generate participants' input and perspectives. The focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were then qualitatively analyzed using content analysis., Study Sample: The study samples were 10 audiologists (seven females) with 2- to 10-plus years of hearing aid fitting experience., Results: Three main categories were identified: (a) The mobile device app could provide meaningful information to help audiologists to counsel their clients, (b) the app could give clients an insight into their hearing difficulties, and (c) the app could help clients to self-manage their hearing condition., Conclusion: These findings suggest that audiologists may better understand their clients' real-life listening difficulties through the use of a mobile device app; however, further research is required to harness the benefits of such an app.

The objective was to document the influence of face mask use by other people on communication experiences, participation in activities, and quality of life. Australian adults (n = 665) completed an online survey; 90.8% resided in a state with mandatory mask use outside the home and 44.1% self-reported hearing difficulties. Mask use was reported as negatively affecting communication quality in the community (90.2%) and workplace (91.8%), and with household members (59.1%), including an increased requirement for clarification and repetition, increased difficulty communicating, and decreased understanding. Masks influenced feelings when communicating in the community (74.1%) and workplace (76.7%), and with household members (43.6%), including increased fatigue and frustration, and decreased connection to others. Masks influenced the time spent communicating in the community (68.8%) and workplace (67.9%), and with household members (42.3%), including a decrease in the number of individuals communicated with, and the time spent communicating with each individual. Masks influenced participation in activities in the community (50.9%) and workplace (59.7%), and with household members (41.3%), including reduced participation in health-related activities, shopping, and socialising. Influences on quality of life included reduced physical and mental health, including increased loneliness. Female gender and greater self-reported hearing difficulties were significantly associated with increased influence of mask use. The wide-ranging influences of face mask use have implications for physical health and mental health, including social connectedness, and for employers and the economy. As an important measure for combatting disease spread, the negative impacts of mask use must be considered during policy formulation, and appropriate mitigating measures, such as educational campaigns, enacted., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Cognitive and other biases can influence the quality of healthcare decision making. While substantial research has explored how biases can lead to diagnostic or other errors in medicine, fewer studies have examined how they impact the decision making of other healthcare professionals. This scoping review aimed to identify and synthesise a broad range of research investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases., Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in five electronic databases. Title, abstract and full text screening was undertaken in duplicate, using prespecified eligibility criteria designed to identify studies attempting to demonstrate the presence of bias when allied healthcare professionals make decisions. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, focussing on the type of allied health profession, type of decision, and type of bias reported within the included studies., Results: The search strategy identified 149 studies. Of these, 119 studies came from the field of psychology, with substantially fewer from social work, physical and occupational therapy, speech pathology, audiology and genetic counselling. Diagnostic and assessment decisions were the most common decision types, with fewer studies assessing treatment, prognostic or other clinical decisions. Studies investigated the presence of over 30 cognitive, affective and other decision making biases, including stereotyping biases, anchoring, and confirmation bias. Overall, 77% of the studies reported at least one outcome that represented the presence of a bias., Conclusion: This scoping review provides an overview of studies investigating whether decisions made by allied health professionals are influenced by cognitive, affective or other biases. Biases have the potential to seriously impact the quality, consistency and accuracy of decision making in allied health practice. The findings highlight a need for further research particularly in professional disciplines outside of psychology, using methods that reflect real life healthcare decision making., Competing Interests: A.P.V. has a commercial affiliation with Redenlab, however this did not play a role in this study. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Audiologists are constantly making decisions that are key to optimizing client/patient outcomes, and these decisions may be vulnerable to cognitive biases., Purpose: The purpose was to determine the present state of knowledge within the field of audiology regarding the potential impact of cognitive biases on clinical decision-making and the use of interventions to reduce such impact., Research Design: A systematic review was conducted to identify and consider the outcomes of all studies in which an intervention, strategy, or procedure was implemented with the aim of reducing the impact of cognitive biases on the decision-making of audiologists., Data Collection: The review was part of a larger scale search which included the broader disciplines of health science and medicine. Electronic database searches were supplemented by citation searches of relevant reviews and a gray literature search. Following title and abstract screening, 201 full-text studies were considered for inclusion., Results: No studies were found which fulfilled the eligibility criteria., Conclusions: Despite initial calls to respond to these types of cognitive biases being made three decades ago, no peer-reviewed scientific studies testing strategies to reduce the impact of cognitive biases on the decision-making of audiologists were found. There is a clear need for a more concerted research effort in this area if audiologists are to consistently deliver truly evidence-based care., (American Academy of Audiology.)

Significance: Cognitive biases, systematic errors in thinking that impact a person's choices and judgments, can influence decision making at various points during patient care provision. These biases can potentially result in misdiagnoses, delayed clinical care, and/or patient mismanagement. A range of interventions exists to mitigate cognitive biases. There is a need to understand the relative efficacy of these interventions within the context of eye care practice., Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the evidence relating to interventions for mitigating cognitive biases associated with clinical decision making by eye care professionals., Data Sources: Electronic databases (including Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO) were searched from inception to October 2017 for studies investigating interventions intended to mitigate cognitive biases in the clinical decision making of eye care professionals. This review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines., Study Eligibility Criteria: To ensure inclusion of all relevant literature, a wide range of study designs was eligible for inclusion, such as randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, interrupted time series and repeated measures, controlled before-after studies, and qualitative studies that were a component of any of these quantitative study designs., Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles in duplicate, applying a priori eligibility criteria., Results: After screening 2759 nonduplicate records, including full-text screening of 201 articles, no relevant studies were identified., Conclusions and Implications of Findings: Given that cognitive biases can significantly impact the accuracy of clinical decision making and thus can have major effects on clinical care and patient health outcomes, the lack of studies identified in this systematic review indicates a critical need for research within the area of cognitive bias mitigation for decision making within eye care practice.

Objectives: To compare threshold and comfortable levels between a first and second cochlear implant (CI) for children, and to consider if the degree of difference between CIs was related to the age at bilateral implantation or the time between implants. A secondary objective was to examine the changes in levels over time for each CI., Design: Fifty-seven participants were selected from the 146 children and young adults who received a first Nucleus CI as a child, and received a second implant at the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital between September 2003 and December 2011. Exclusion criteria included an older implant type, incomplete array insertion, incomplete data available, and a pulse width higher than the default. Using measurements from clinical sessions, the threshold levels, comfortable levels, and dynamic range of electrical stimulation were compared at three electrode array regions and at the "initial" (first 10 weeks), 2-year, and 5-year postoperative time points. The T-ratio and C-ratio for each array region and each time point were calculated by dividing each mean (n = 3 electrodes) level for the second implant by that for the first implant., Results: The T-ratio was generally not significantly different to one, indicating no differences in threshold levels between the second and first implants; however, threshold levels were lower for the second implant in the apical region at the initial time point, and there was a significant difference in threshold levels in the apical region for children with a Contour Advance array for the second implant and an older-style array (i.e., Contour) for the first implant. For each implant individually, there were no significant changes in threshold levels across time. The C-ratio was significantly <1 at all electrode array regions at all time points, indicating lower comfortable levels for the second implant. The difference between implants was greater for children with variable array type (i.e., a Contour Advance array for the second implant and an older-style Contour or Straight array for the first implant). There was a significant increase in the C-ratio between the initial and 2-year time points, driven by an increase in comfortable levels for the second implant over this time period. A longer time between implants was associated with a narrower dynamic range, due to lower comfortable levels, for the second implant., Conclusions: For this sequentially implanted group, threshold levels were similar between implants, with some differences in cases with a newer array type for the second implant. Comfortable levels were lower for the second implant; although this difference decreased between the initial and 2-year postoperative time points, it was still evident at 5 years postoperative. A longer time between implants was associated with a narrower dynamic range. These findings are likely to apply to children using other brands of implant. Knowing what to expect in terms of programming children with a second implant will help clinicians to recognize and respond to unexpected outcomes. The work raises important questions to be addressed in future research regarding the implications of the programming outcomes for actual listening performance.

Objectives: To determine whether a large clinical group of cochlear implant (CI) recipients demonstrated a difference in sentence recognition in noise when using their pre-upgrade sound processor compared to when using the Nucleus 6 processor, and to examine the impact of the following factors: implant type, sound processor type, age, or onset of hearing loss., Methods: A file review of 154 CI recipients (aged 7-92 years old) who requested an upgrade to the Nucleus 6 sound processor at the Cochlear Care Centre Melbourne was conducted. 105 recipients had complete data collected according to the protocol. A repeated measures, single subject design was used. Performance of CI recipients was compared with their pre-upgrade sound processor versus the Nucleus 6 processor using the Australian Sentence Test in Noise., Results: Group performance of CI recipients improved by 4.7 dB with the Nucleus 6 compared with the pre-upgrade sound processor. The benefit was not affected by pre-upgrade sound processor type or implant type (including older implant types and sound processors), age or onset of hearing loss (pre-lingual versus post-lingual)., Conclusion: This study confirmed that a clinical group of CI recipients obtained a significant benefit when upgrading to the Nucleus 6 sound processor.

Objectives: There are mixed results regarding psychosocial development in children with cochlear implants (CIs) compared with children with normal hearing (NH), and the effect of bilateral CIs has not yet been investigated. This study aimed to investigate whether social development differed between NH children and those with early CIs, and to identify new predictors of psychosocial development in children with early CIs., Design: The psychosocial development, cognitive and language abilities of 159 children were measured as part of a longitudinal outcomes study of children with CIs. Parental involvement was also assessed., Results: The children in this study did not differ significantly from their peers with NH in terms of their psychosocial development, except with regard to Prosocial Behavior, with parents reporting significantly poorer development in this area. Having bilateral CIs predicted significantly fewer difficulties with psychosocial development, with earlier age at implantation increasing the effect size of the second CI for Emotional Symptoms and Peer Problems. Receptive language ability, higher parent education, later birth order, high parent involvement, and female gender predicted significantly fewer parent reports of psychosocial problems. Higher child cognitive ability and greater screen time predicted significantly greater reported psychosocial difficulties. Marginal effects modeling quantified the effects of changes in the predictive factors examined., Conclusions: Psychosocial development in these children with early CIs was found to be similar to that for peers with NH, with the exception of delayed Prosocial Behavior development. Having bilateral CIs predicted significantly better emotional outcomes. A number of new predictive factors were found for psychosocial development. The results of the marginal effects modeling should be shared with parents and professionals to increase their understanding of the impact of changes in predictive factors, particularly in terms of their own contribution to psychosocial outcomes for children with CIs.

Objectives: This study examined electrical stimulation levels over 8 to 10 years postimplantation in adult Nucleus implant users. The first aim was to investigate long-term trends and amount of change in electrical stimulation levels for each of four electrode array segments. The second aim was to determine long-term trends and amount of change for particular participants who previously showed greater change (i.e., >20% of dynamic range [DR]) in each of the threshold (T) and comfort (C) levels within the first 3 to 6 months postimplantation. The third aim was to determine whether demographic characteristics were predictive of the long-term trends and amount of change in each of the T and C levels., Design: For 128 adults implanted with Nucleus implants, T levels, C levels, and DR were extracted for the following postimplant time points: 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 48, 72, 96, and 120 months. For each time point, the mean T levels, C levels, and DR were calculated for each of four electrode array segments. For each participant, regression analyses were conducted for each of the levels and DR, separately for each of the four electrode array segments. Proportions of participants with and without statistically significant trends were identified, and the amount of change was determined for all participants., Results: No significant differences in trends and amount of change were evident across segments for either of the T or C levels. On average across the four segments, 42% of participants showed nonsignificant trends in each of the T and C levels; 24% and 18% of the participants showed a significant trend only in C levels or only in T levels, respectively. Only 16% of the participants showed a significant trend in both T and C levels. Separately, 73% of the participants showed a nonsignificant trend in DR. In terms of current levels (CLs), the mean amount of change over 10 years for all participants was 10.4 (SD = 8.2) and 10.8 (SD = 9.8) for T and C levels, respectively. For both T and C levels, approximately 95% of the participants showed <25 CLs of change over the 10 years. For both T and C levels, at least 75% of the participants showed less than 6% change each year as a function of their average DR across the 8 to 10 years. For the participants who were previously reported to show >20% change in levels as a function of DR in the first 3 to 6 months postimplantation, nonsignificant long-term trend in levels was shown for 70% of these participants over the first 8 to 10 years postimplantation. Etiology, onset of hearing loss, and age at implantation were not significant factors in predicting change in levels. Duration of hearing loss and hearing aid use before implantation were both predictive of long-term change in T and C levels, respectively. In terms of the amount of change in CLs, both these factors showed a very small amount of change in CLs., Conclusions: The majority of adults using Nucleus implants showed a nonsignificant trend in T levels, C levels, and DR over 8 to 10 years postimplantation. The present study provides strong evidence that only a small amount of change in levels should be expected for most adults from 6 months out to 10 years postimplantation. A large proportion of the subgroup of participants who previously showed more change in the first 3 to 6 months showed consistent long-term results with the overall group. The trends in levels and the amount of change in levels in the long term were not significantly associated with the demographic characteristics investigated. For implant users with consistent levels over a number of sessions after the first 6 months postimplantation, the frequency of programming in the long term can be reduced. The translation of the findings from the present study into clinical practice will enable more efficient programming services to be provided to implant users in the long term.

Objectives: To measure binaural benefit over the shadowed ear alone for young bilateral cochlear implant (CI) users. It was hypothesized that children who received bilateral CIs at a young age (<4 years), and had significant bilateral experience, would demonstrate lower detection thresholds for speech sounds in background noise in the bilateral CI over the unilateral CI condition when the added CI was ipsilateral to the noise source., Design: Children receiving bilateral CIs at the Eye and Ear Hospital Clinic in Melbourne were invited to participate in a wider research project evaluating outcomes; those participating in the wider project who were bilaterally implanted by 4 years and were approximately 2 years postoperative were included in the present study. For 20 participants, detection signal to noise ratios (SNRs) were measured for speech presented from in front and noise from 90° in at least 3 of 4 device/noise conditions, namely left CI/noise right and right CI/noise left, plus bilateral CIs/noise right and bilateral CIs/noise left., Results: As some participants could only complete testing in 3 conditions within the 1 test block, the unilateral versus bilateral comparison was performed for 1 CI (i.e., 1 noise direction) for 15 participants and for both CIs (i.e., noise left and noise right) for 5 participants. Group analysis indicated no significant difference in detection SNR between the unilateral and bilateral CI conditions when adding the left CI or right CI (for the overall group) or when adding the first or second CI (for the 15 participants with sequential bilateral CIs). Separate analyses indicated no significant difference in detection SNR between the unilateral and bilateral CI conditions for the majority of individuals; this occurred irrespective of whether the analysis indicated that the CI added in the bilateral condition was poorer-performing, better-performing, or not significantly different compared with the other CI. Four individuals demonstrated a significant improvement in the bilateral condition when the CI added in the bilateral condition was a better-performing (n = 1), poorer-performing (n = 2), or not significantly different CI (n = 1). There was no relationship between the detection SNR difference between each CI and the detection SNR difference between the unilateral and bilateral conditions., Conclusions: The hypothesis of a lower detection SNR in the bilateral condition was not supported by the group results or by the results for the majority of individuals. For the 4 participants who did demonstrate benefit over the shadowed ear alone, that benefit cannot be separated from the potential benefit gained as a result of the CI added in the bilateral condition being the better-performing CI for 1 of the 4. Variation in outcomes could not be related to demographic factors for this group, which was relatively homogeneous for age at bilateral CI and experience; an older, more experienced group may demonstrate greater binaural benefit in these conditions. These results can be used during counseling for families regarding postoperative expectations for young children, especially in the first 2 years.

Objectives: To examine electrical stimulation data over 24 months postimplantation in adult implant users. The first aim was to calculate mean T and C levels for seven time points, for four cochlear segments, and two array types. The second aim was to (a) analyze the degree of change in each of the T and C levels as a function of dynamic range for six consecutive time point comparisons, for the four segments, and (b) to determine the proportion of participants with an acceptable degree of change. The third aim was to examine relationships between demographic factors and degree of change., Design: T levels, C levels, and dynamic ranges were extracted for 680 adults using Nucleus implants for the following postimplant time points: 2-, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month. For each time point, mean levels were calculated for the four segments. The degree of change in each of the levels was analyzed for six consecutive time point comparisons. The criterion for an acceptable degree of change was ≤20% of DR., Results: Mean T level was significantly lower for the 2-month time point compared with all time points after the 3-month time point. Mean C level was significantly lower for the 2- and 3-month time points compared with all other time points. Mean T level was significantly lower for the apical compared with all other segments and for the lower-basal compared with the upper-basal segment. Mean C level was significantly different across all four segments. Mean C level for the basal segments was 4 CLs higher for the perimodiolar array compared with the straight array. No significant differences were evident for the mean degree of change between consecutive time point comparisons. For all segments, approximately 65 to 75% of the participants showed an average acceptable degree of change in levels from the 3- to 6-month comparison. The mean degree of change in T levels was significantly greater for the basal segments compared with all other segments. The mean degree of change in levels was significantly greater for the otosclerosis group compared with all other groups, and for the prelingual onset of deafness group compared with the postlingual group., Conclusion: Given the very large cohort, this study provides evidence for the mean levels and the degree of change in these levels that should be expected for four segments in the first 24 months postimplantation for adults using Nucleus implants. The mean T and C levels were consistent after the 3- and 6-month time points postimplant, respectively. The degree of change was variable between individuals. For each segment, however, a large percentage of participants showed an average change of ≤20% in each of the T and C levels from the 3- to 6-month comparison. Given the large degree of change in levels for some groups, the results provide strong evidence in favor of frequent monitoring of levels in the first 24 months postimplantation for patients with otosclerosis, prelingual onset of deafness, and those who exhibit >20% change in levels after 3 months postimplantation.

Objectives: To evaluate change in individual children's performance in general areas of everyday listening following sequential bilateral implantation, and to identify the specific types of listening scenarios in which performance change occurred. The first hypothesis was that parent performance ratings for their child would be higher in the bilateral versus unilateral implant condition for each section of the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale for parents, viz.: speech perception, spatial hearing, and qualities of hearing. The second hypothesis was that the rating for the participant group would be higher in the bilateral condition for speech perception items involving group conversation or background noise, spatial hearing items, and qualities of hearing items focused on sound segregation or listening effort., Design: Children receiving sequential bilateral implants at the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital and fulfilling selection criteria (primarily no significant cognitive or developmental delays, and oral English language skills of child and parent sufficient for completing assessments) were invited to participate in a wider project evaluating outcomes. The assessment protocol for older children included the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale for parents. All children (n = 20; ages 4 to 15 years) whose parents completed the scale preoperatively and at 24-months postoperatively were included in this study. Ratings obtained preoperatively in the unilateral implant condition (or unilateral implant plus hearing aid for 4 participants) were compared with those obtained postoperatively in the bilateral implant condition., Results: Bilateral ratings were significantly higher than unilateral ratings on the speech section for 12 children (W ≥ 7.0; p ≤ 0.03), on the spatial section for 13 children (W ≥ 15.0; p ≤ 0.03), and on the qualities of hearing section for 9 children (W ≥ 15.0; p ≤ 0.047). The difference between conditions was unrelated to time between implants or age at bilateral implantation (r ≤ 0.4; p ≥ 0.082). The median bilateral ratings for the participant group were higher for all eight speech perception items, including, as predicted, those involving group conversation and/or background noise (W ≥ 37.5; p ≤ 0.043). Also, as predicted, the median bilateral ratings for the participant group were higher for all six spatial hearing items (W ≥ 88.0; p ≤ 0.014), and for qualities of hearing items related to sound segregation (W ≥ 94.0; p ≤ 0.029), but not for those related to listening effort (W ≤ 92.0; p ≥ 0.112)., Conclusions: Seventy-five percentage of parents perceived change in their child's daily listening performance postoperatively, and 25% perceived change across all three listening areas. For the overall participant group, the parents perceived a change in performance in the majority of specific listening scenarios, although change was limited in the qualities of hearing section, including no change in listening effort. Previous research suggests postoperative change was likely due to the headshadow effect and improved spatial hearing. Additional contributions may have been made by binaural summation, redundancy, and unmasking. For these participants, differences between device conditions may have been limited by their relatively old age at implantation, delay between implants, and limited bilateral experience. These results will provide valuable information to families during preoperative counseling and postoperative discussions about expected progress and evident benefit.

Objectives: First, to document a broad range of functional outcomes of bilateral implantation for young children through young adults at a postoperative point at which stable outcomes could be expected. Second, to evaluate the relationship between functional outcomes and age at bilateral implantation and time between implants., Design: A study-specific questionnaire was administered to parents in an interview 3.5 years or more after sequential (n = 50) or simultaneous (n = 7) implants were received by their child. Median age at bilateral implantation was 4.1 years (range 0.7 to 19.8) and time between implants was 2.7 years (range 0.0 to 16.7)., Results: On the basis of parent report, 72% of the sequentially implanted children and young adults found it easy/only "a bit difficult" to adapt to the second implant, and were "happily wearing both implants together most of the time" by 6 months or before; 26% had not adapted, with both implants not worn most of the time or worn as a parental requirement. Seventy-two percent of sequentially implanted children and young adults had a positive attitude toward the second implant, including 9 whose early postoperative attitude was negative or neutral. The majority of children and young adults preferred bilateral implants (70%) and used the two full time (72%), while around half demonstrated similar performance with each implant alone. The proportion of nonusers or very minimal users of the second implant was just 9%. Eighty-eight percent of parents reported superior performance with bilateral versus a unilateral implant (n = 40), or that only bilateral implants were worn (n = 10) so performance could not be compared. The most commonly identified areas of superiority were localization, less need for repetition, and increased responsiveness. In balancing risks and costs with benefits, most parents (86%) considered the second implant worthwhile. Regarding the relationship between outcomes and demographic factors, the group achieving similar performance with each implant alone was younger at bilateral implantation and had less time between implants, and the group bilaterally implanted before 3.5 years of age (who also had less than 2 years between implants) had a higher proportion of positive outcomes on all functional outcome measures., Conclusion: Overall, the results indicate primarily positive functional outcomes for children and young adults receiving bilateral implants at all ages, including when the delay between implants is long. The results are important for evidence-based preoperative counseling, which helps families to make informed decisions and develop appropriate expectations. The results are also important for the development of clinical management practices that support and encourage the minority of recipients who have difficulty adapting to bilateral implants or achieving full-time use.

Objectives: To compare the listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults using implants versus their peers with normal hearing when these two groups are achieving similar speech perception scores. The study also aimed to compare listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults with bilateral cochlear implants when using two implants versus one., Methods: Eight participants with bilateral cochlear implants and eight with normal hearing aged 10-22 years were included. Using a dual-task paradigm, participants repeated consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words presented in noise and performed a visual matching task. Signal-to-noise ratios were set individually to ensure the word perception task was challenging but manageable for all. Reduced performance on the visual task in the dual-task condition relative to the single-task condition was indicative of the effort expended on the listening task., Results: The cochlear implant group, when using bilateral implants, expended similar levels of listening effort to the normal hearing group when the two groups were achieving similar speech perception scores. For three individuals with cochlear implants, and the group, listening effort was significantly reduced with bilateral compared to unilateral implants., Discussion: The similar amount of listening effort expended by the two groups indicated that a higher signal-to-noise ratio overcame limitations in the auditory information received or processed by the participants with implants. This study is the first to objectively compare listening effort using two versus one cochlear implant. The results provide objective evidence that reduced listening effort is a benefit that some individuals gain from bilateral cochlear implants.

Subjective assessment of hearing ability in everyday life complements more objective forms of evaluation. A broad evaluation of the additional benefit provided to children by a second bilateral cochlear implant required such an assessment. As no paediatric tool provided detailed evaluation of performance in the areas of daily listening in which benefit was likely to be demonstrated, an adult questionnaire was adapted. Items of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) focused mainly, although not exclusively, on hearing functions requiring the binaural system. The adapted child, parent, and teacher versions of the SSQ retained the structure of rating listening performance in everyday scenarios across the domains of speech perception, spatial hearing, and other qualities of hearing. Modifications were minimized, although deletion of some items and wording changes were required, and some subdomains could not be included. Observation periods were introduced so that parents and teachers observe performance prior to providing ratings. The suggested minimum age is 11 years for the child version and 5 years for the parent and teacher versions. Instructions indicate interview-style administration in which interpretation of the described listening scenarios can be clarified and use of the ruler-style response format demonstrated. Researchers applying the SSQ for parents have reported higher performance ratings for bilateral over unilateral cochlear implants, particularly in the spatial hearing domain. Further research should provide evidence for the target age range, compare child and parent responses, and evaluate modifications for use with younger children.

Objective: To classify adaptation difficulties, or lack thereof, experienced by a clinical population of young bilateral cochlear implant recipients., Method: Forty-six of the first 48 children sequentially or simultaneously implanted at ≤3.5 years at the Melbourne Clinic participated. Classification into categories was based on daily use of both implants at 2 months post-switch-on, with follow-up information obtained at 12 months., Results: The 37 Category 1 children wore both implants full time at 2 months, and 35 still did so at 12 months. The two Category 2 children used both implants 4 hours daily at 2 months, but achieved full-time use within 12 months. The five Category 3 children used both implants for ≤1 hour, with only three achieving full-time use within 12 months. The two Category 4 children did not use two implants at 2 months, and one still did not wear both implants at 12 months. There were weak/modest but significant relationships between category and each of time between implants and age at bilateral implantation., Discussion: Ninety-five percent of simultaneously and 70% of sequentially implanted children demonstrated full-time use within 2 months, and nearly all continued to do so at 12 months. Full-time use maximizes opportunities to develop listening skills. Monitoring device use is necessary for all children, especially when significant change occurs. For those experiencing difficulty in adapting, bilateral implant use usually increased over 12 months. Pre-operative counselling must include discussion of possible adaptation difficulties and raise the potential negative influence of age at bilateral implantation and time between implants.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of planned simultaneous cochlear implant operations that do not result in simultaneous cochlear implants on the day of surgery. The frequency with which this occurs has not been reported in the literature, and such information is important for parents' pre-operative decision making., Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of pediatric cochlear implant operations performed in the period January 2007-July 2010 at the Melbourne Cochlear Implant Clinic. The number of planned simultaneous cochlear implant procedures and the results of these surgeries were catalogued. Reasons for not proceeding with simultaneous cochlear implants as planned were also identified., Results: In the time period examined, there were a total of 50 planned simultaneous cochlear implant operations. Of these planned simultaneous operations, 22% did not result in bilateral cochlear implants on the day of surgery, with all children involved receiving a first-side cochlear implant only. In the majority of cases, the reason for a first-side cochlear implant only was otitis media., Conclusion: In the time period examined, a considerable proportion of planned simultaneous cochlear implant operations did not result in simultaneous bilateral implantation on the day of surgery. It is important that the likelihood of this outcome is discussed with families during pre-operative counseling as it may influence their decision making., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to determine if adolescents/young adults gained additional perceptual benefit from sequential bilateral cochlear implants within 12 months, and to document adaptation to the second implant. Assessments comprised a pediatric version of The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), anecdotal reports of device use and daily listening, and the Adaptive Spondee Discrimination Test (AdSpon). All nine participants achieved full-time use of, a preference for, and superior daily listening with, bilateral implants. Eight participants were comfortable using the second implant alone, and two achieved similar daily listening with either implant alone. SSQ ratings were higher post-operatively for the majority of participants. AdSpon performance was superior bilaterally for five participants with noise ipsilateral to the first implant, but not contralateral. Unilateral performance with either implant was similar for one participant. A second implant may provide additional benefit up to 19 years of age, even with congenital hearing loss and >16 years between implants. Families and clinicians should understand the aspects of second-implant candidacy and post-operative use that are unique to adolescents/young adults.