This document discusses cochlear implant candidacy criteria. It provides a brief history of cochlear implants and statistics on implants performed. It describes the differences between hearing aids and cochlear implants. Medical and audiological candidacy criteria for adults and children are outlined for different cochlear implant manufacturers based on FDA guidelines. Audiological tests used to assess candidacy and benefit from hearing aids are mentioned. The roles of various professionals on the cochlear implant team are highlighted.
Auditory brainstem response (ABR)
Approximately 1 of every 1000 children is born deaf. Many more are born with less severe degrees of hearing impairment, while others may acquire hearing loss during early childhood.
combination of technological advances in ABR and otoacoustic emissions (OAE) testing methods are used for evaluation of hearing in newborns.
Auditory brainstem response (ABR)
Approximately 1 of every 1000 children is born deaf. Many more are born with less severe degrees of hearing impairment, while others may acquire hearing loss during early childhood.
combination of technological advances in ABR and otoacoustic emissions (OAE) testing methods are used for evaluation of hearing in newborns.
definition of cochlear implant , history of the procedure , purpose of the procedure , indications for cochlear implant , surgical procedure , risk of cochlear implant surgery , post operative care , normal result
definition of cochlear implant , history of the procedure , purpose of the procedure , indications for cochlear implant , surgical procedure , risk of cochlear implant surgery , post operative care , normal result
Overview of Behavioural and Objective Techniques in Screening.pptxAmbuj Kushawaha
Hearing loss, being an invisible disability, can remain unnoticed, particularly since typically developing children might not start speaking until around the age of two. Consequently, if hearing loss isn't identified through newborn hearing screening initiatives, it frequently remains undetected beyond 18 months of age, especially among children without any medical conditions or additional disabilities.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
2. Firsts
• Invented by Dr William House, 1964.
• Implanted in 1964 by Drs Simmons and White
at Stanford University.
• Modern multichannel implant was by Dr Clark
and was implanted on person named Mr Rod
Saunders in 1978.
• FDA approval: 1985.
• In India: An adult at AIIMS in 1997.
3. Statistics
• December 2012, 324000 implants have been
done (NIDCD, 2013).
– In US: 58000 Adults and 38000 children.
• In India:
– Mostly children
– Is it important to know?
4. Hearing aids vs cochlear implants
• Stimulation
– Acoustic in HAs
– Electric in CIs
• Course of auditory nerve stimulation
– EE, ME and cochlea (HA)
– Direct nerve (CI)
• Which stimulation is better?
5. Hearing aids makes use of what?
• HAs makes use of the remaining residual
hearing
• Acoustically stimulating residual hearing by
amplifying the incoming sounds.
Severe
Gain 50 dB
Moderate
Gain 30 dB
6. Residual hearing and hearing loss
• Moderate to moderately-severe hearing loss:
quite a bit of usable residual hearing.
• Severe and higher loss: limited residual hearing.
– Low frequency
– This is where one should consider Cochlear
Implant.
7. Is this enough?
• Can we suggest CI merely on the basis of the
degree of hearing loss?
– No
• Here come “Candidacy”
9. Candidacy of CI: Team
• Otologist trained CI surgeon
• Audiologists
• Speech language Pathologists
• Psychologists
• Counselors
10. Medical candidacy of CI
• Dr Khan
• Audiology counseling about CI should be done after
medical investigations including otoscopy, MRI, CT,
etc.
– Auditory structures
• Age
– As young as 12 months (FDA approved).
– Companies says as low as few months. Depending on
individual circumstances and local practices
– In olders: depends on the surgical contraindications
11. Audiological candidacy of CI
• FDA approved candidacy criteria
– Why FDA
• Most standard and research based
– Specific to the implant companies
• Companies proposes their product and layout candidacy
• FDA experts then evaluate the mention quantitatively and
then give approvals
– Specific to adult and children
12. Adult CI-Candidacy (Audiological)
(18 years of age or older)
Advanced Bionics
• Bilateral severe to profound cochlear hearing loss
(>70 dB HL)
• Postlingual onset
• Limited benefit from appropriately fit hearing aids
– Scoring 50% or less on a test of open-set sentence
recognition (HINT sentences)
13. Adult CI-Candidacy (Audiological)
(18 years of age or older)
Cochlear
• Bilateral moderate-to-profound hearing loss in the low
frequencies
• Bilateral profound hearing loss in the mid to high
speech frequencies.
• Limited benefit from amplification
– Scores of 50% correct or less in the ear to be implanted
(60% or less in the best-aided listening condition) on tape-
recorded tests of open-set sentence recognition
14. Adult CI-Candidacy (Audiological)
(18 years of age or older)
Medel
• Bilateral severe to profound cochlear hearing loss.
– Pure-tone average of 70 dB or greater at 500, 1,000,and
2,000 Hz.
• Limited benefit from amplification
– Scores of 40% correct or less in best-aided listening
condition on DC-recorded tests of open-set sentence
recognition (Hearing in Noise Test [HINT]sentences)
15. Children CI-Candidacy (Audiological)
(12 months to 17.11 years)
Advanced Bionics
• Bilateral severe-profound hearing loss.
• Hearing aid usage
– at least 6 months in children 2–17 years of age
– at least 3 months in children 12–23 months of age.
– The minimum duration of hearing aid use is waived
if X-rays indicate ossification of the cochlea.
16. Children CI-Candidacy (Audiological)
(12 months to 17.11 years)
Advanced Bionics (contd…)
• Little or no benefit from appropriately fit hearing aids
– In younger children (<4 years of age)
Failure to reach developmentally appropriate auditory milestones
o Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale
o Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale
o <20% correct on a simple open-set word recognition test (Multisyllabic
Lexical Neighborhood Test [MLNT]) administered using monitored live
voice (70 dB SPL).
17. Children CI-Candidacy (Audiological)
(12 months to 17.11 years)
Advanced Bionics (contd…)
• Little or no benefit from appropriately fit hearing aids
– In older children (>4 years of age)
<12% on a difficult open-set word recognition test (Phonetically
Balanced Kindergarten Test)
<30% on an open-set sentence test (HINT for Children)
70 dB SPL
18. Children CI-Candidacy (Audiological)
(12 months to 17.11 years)
Cochlear
• 12-24 months of age: Bilateral profound HL.
• > 2years of age: Bilateral severe to profound hearing
loss.
• 3-6 months hearing aid usage.
• Limited hearing aids benefits.
– In young children
Lack of progress in the development of simple auditory skills.
Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale or the Early Speech
Perception test
19. Children CI-Candidacy (Audiological)
(12 months to 17.11 years)
Cochlear (contd…)
• Limited hearing aids benefits.
– In older children
≤30% correct on the open-set MLNT or Lexical Neighborhood
Test (LNT), depending on the child’s cognitive and linguistic skills
20. Children CI-Candidacy (Audiological)
(12 months to 17.11 years)
Medel
• As young as several months
• Bilateral severe to profound hearing loss.
• Hearing aid usage: 3-6 months.
• Limited progress with hearing aids
– In younger children : Simple auditory skills not
developed.
– In older children: <20% correct on the MLNT or
LNT
21. Audiological tests to assess candidacy
• Pure-tone Audiometry
• Speech Audiometry
– SRT and SI
– SDT
• Tympanometry and Reflexometry
• OAEs
• ABR
• EABR
22. Audiological tests to assess candidacy after a
certain period of hearing aid usage
• Pure-tone Audiometry
• Speech Perception Tests
23. Audiological tests to assess candidacy after a
certain period of hearing aid usage
• Speech Perception Tests
– Adults
Minimum Speech Test Battery (MSTB)
o Bamford-Kowal-Bamford Speech-in-Noise (BKB-SIN) test
(Etymotic Research, 2005)
o AzBio sentences (Spahr & Dorman, 2004)
o Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) test (Peterson & Lehiste,
1962)
24. Audiological tests to assess candidacy after a
certain period of hearing aid usage
• Speech Perception Tests
– Children
– Early Speech Perception Test (ESP) (Moog and Geers,1990)
– Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (MAIS) (Robbins et al., 1991)
– Infant-Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (IT-MAIS)
(Zimmerman-Phillips et al., 1998)
– Word Intelligibility by Picture Identification (WIPI) Test (Ross and
Lerman, 1979)
– Northwestern University-Children’s Perception of Speech (NU-CHIPS)
Test (Elliott and Katz, 1980)
– Phonetically Balanced Kindergarten (PBK)-50 Word List (Haskins, 1949)
– Bamford-Kowal-Bench (BKB) Sentences (Bench et al., 1979)
– Glendonald Auditory Screening Procedure (GASP) (Erber, 1982)
– Lexical Neighborhood Test (LNT) (Kirk et al., 1995)
– Multisyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Test (MLNT)(Kirk et al., 1995)
25. Speech and language evaluations
• To estimate child’s speech and language
development. To set a base-line.
– Expressive and receptive language skills
– Articulation skills
– Speech intelligibility
26. Psychological evaluations
• Primarily in children
– To see factors such as cognitive, emotional, social and
adaptive abilities other than hearing impairment are
impairing auditory development.
– To rule out cognitive impairment
• Difficulty in detecting autism till 2years
• Parents should be informed that outcome will be limited in case
of cognitive disabilities
• In adults, if, concerns of cognitive status or mental
function
27. ADIP CI candidacy-Children
• <5years
• Bilateral severe to profound hearing loss
• 3 months hearing aid usage
• Limited benefit with HAs
28. Arogyasri CI candidacy-Children
• <2years
• Bilateral severe to profound hearing loss
• 3 months hearing aid usage
• Limited benefit with HAs
29. Things to see other than candidacy criteria
Adults
• Have a strong desire to be part of the hearing world
and communicate through listening, speaking, and
speech reading
• Have lost their hearing after speech and language
development
30. Things to see other than candidacy criteria
Children
• Parents motivation
• Realistic expectations
• Economic status to sustain maintenance
31. Questions for CI Audiologist
1. What are the advantages of a cochlear implant over a hearing aid?
2. Is the implant guaranteed to work?
3. Can we talk to someone who has had an implant?
4. What happens at the cochlear implant clinic?
5. How long will we have to wait to have the surgery?
6. What happens during surgery?
7. Will child be able to hear immediately after surgery?
8. Will there have a visible scar?
9. What are the risks of surgery?
10. How familiar are you with cochlear implants?
11. Which ear will be have implanted?
12. What is the latest technology?
13. What is a hybrid cochlear implant or bimodal hearing solution?
14. What adaptors or accessories can I use with a cochlear implant?
15. Will child/I be able to swim and play sports?
16. What support can we expect?
32. Limitation in CI program (India)
• Poor counseling
– Non-professionals
• Un-realistic expectations
• Maintenance of CI poorly explained