Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Jul;140(7):608-15.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2014.757.

Neurocognitive risk in children with cochlear implants

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Neurocognitive risk in children with cochlear implants

William G Kronenberger et al. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Jul.

Abstract

Importance: Children who receive a cochlear implant (CI) for early severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss may achieve age-appropriate spoken language skills not possible before implantation. Despite these advances, reduced access to auditory experience may have downstream effects on fundamental neurocognitive processes for some children with CIs.

Objective: To determine the relative risk (RR) of clinically significant executive functioning deficits in children with CIs compared with children with normal hearing (NH).

Design, setting, and participants: In this prospective, cross-sectional study, 73 children at a hospital-based clinic who received their CIs before 7 years of age and 78 children with NH, with average to above average mean nonverbal IQ scores, were recruited in 2 age groups: preschool age (age range, 3-5 years) and school age (age range, 7-17 years). No children presented with other developmental, cognitive, or neurologic diagnoses.

Interventions: Parent-reported checklist measures of executive functioning were completed during psychological testing sessions.

Main outcomes and measures: Estimates of the RR of clinically significant deficits in executive functioning (≥1 SDs above the mean) for children with CIs compared with children with NH were obtained based on 2 parent-reported child behavior checklists of everyday problems with executive functioning.

Results: In most domains of executive functioning, children with CIs were at 2 to 5 times greater risk of clinically significant deficits compared with children with NH. The RRs for preschoolers and school-aged children, respectively, were greatest in the areas of comprehension and conceptual learning (RR [95% CI], 3.56 [1.71-7.43] and 6.25 [2.64-14.77]), factual memory ( 4.88 [1.58-15.07] and 5.47 [2.03-14.77]), attention (3.38 [1.03-11.04] and 3.13 [1.56-6.26]), sequential processing (11.25 [1.55-81.54] and 2.44 [1.24-4.76]), working memory (4.13 [1.30-13.06] and 3.64 [1.61-8.25] for one checklist and 1.77 [0.82-3.83] and 2.78 [1.18-6.51] for another checklist), and novel problem-solving (3.93 [1.50-10.34] and 3.13 [1.46-6.67]). No difference between the CI and NH samples was found for visual-spatial organization (2.63 [0.76-9.03] and 1.04 [0.45-2.40] on one checklist and 2.86 [0.98-8.39] for school-aged children on the other checklist).

Conclusions and relevance: A large proportion of children with CIs are at risk for clinically significant deficits across multiple domains of executive functioning, a rate averaging 2 to 5 times that of children with NH for most domains. Screening for risk of executive functioning deficits should be a routine part of the clinical evaluation of all children with deafness and CIs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure
Figure. Number of Clinically Elevated Executive Function Subscale Scores
Figure shows the percentage of children in each group (cochlear implant [CI] and normal hearing [NH]) with clinically elevated executive functioning on 1 or more subscales: Learning, Executive, and Attention Functioning Scale (LEAF) scores (A) and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF) (preschool version) scores (B) in preschool-aged children (3–5 years old) and LEAF (C) and BRIEF (D) scores in school-aged children (7–17 years old).

Comment in

  • [Risk of executive dysfunction in children].
    Hey C, Zaretsky Y, Thomas JP. Hey C, et al. Laryngorhinootologie. 2015 Jul;94(7):430-1. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1552112. Laryngorhinootologie. 2015. PMID: 26334069 German. No abstract available.

References

    1. Kral A, O’Donoghue GM. Profound deafness in childhood. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(15):1438–1450. - PubMed
    1. Muse C, Harrison J, Yoshinaga-Itano C, et al. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Supplement to the JCIH 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early intervention after confirmation that a child is deaf or hard of hearing. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):e1324–e1349. - PubMed
    1. Nicholas JG, Geers AE. Will they catch up? the role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe to profound hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007;50(4):1048–1062. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Niparko JK, Tobey EA, Thal DJ, et al. CDaCI Investigative Team. Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation. JAMA. 2010;303(15):1498–1506. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Geers AE, Hayes H. Reading, writing, and phonological processing skills of adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience. Ear Hear. 2011;32(1 suppl):49S–59S. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types