Effects of Hearing Aid versus Cochlear Implant on Hearing and Speech Recognition in Children

Authors

  • Bushra Naseer Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Wajeeha Zaib Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Ghulam Saqulain Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Amna Asghar Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Azmat Tahira Akhtar Memorial Hospital, Sheikhupura, Pakistan
  • Fatima Liaquat Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55735/w5c3fx72

Keywords:

Aided hearing threshold , Cochlear implants, Hearing loss , Speech recognition , Word recognition score

Abstract

Background: Hearing loss in children can significantly delay speech and language development, affecting communication skills, educational performance, and overall quality of life. While both devices aim to provide access to sound, their effectiveness on speech recognition outcomes may vary depending on the degree of hearing loss and aided hearing thresholds. Objective: To compare the effects of hearing aid versus cochlear implant on hearing and speech recognition in children. Methodology: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted at Superior University, and data were collected from the Audiology and Speech Clinic of the Society for Audiological and Developmental Ailments. The duration of the study was 10 months after approval of the synopsis from the Departmental Research Committee. A total of 26 participants, comprising both genders and aged between 6 and 18 years, were included. Hearing aid users with moderate to severe degree sensorineural hearing loss and cochlear implant users with severe to profound degree sensorineural hearing loss were included in the study. Data was collected through a structured questionnaire/proforma, aided audiometry and speech audiometry, measuring word recognition score by using a phonetically balanced word list in Urdu. The normality of the data was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. According to the data distribution, independent sample t-tests and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyse the parametric differences between and within each group, respectively. Correlation between different variables was found using Pearson’s correlation. Results: Children with cochlear implants demonstrated a higher average word recognition score than those using hearing aids, although this difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Aided hearing thresholds were positively associated with word recognition score performance; children with mild or normal aided thresholds had better speech recognition compared to those with moderate thresholds.  Conclusion: There is no significant differences in speech recognition outcomes between hearing aid and cochlear implant users. However, a positive trend was observed, suggesting that better aided hearing thresholds are associated with improved word recognition performance. These findings emphasise the importance of achieving optimal aided thresholds in pediatric audiological management, regardless of the amplification device used.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Niparko JK. Cochlear implants: Principles & practices: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.

2. Clark G. Cochlear implants: fundamentals and applications: Springer; 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/b97263

3. Haile LM, Orji AU, Reavis KM, et al. Hearing loss prevalence, years lived with disability, and hearing aid use in the United States from 1990 to 2019: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Ear and hearing 2024; 45(1): 257-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001420

https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001420 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001420

4. Li W, Zhao Z, Lu Z, Ruan W, Yang M, Wang D. The prevalence and global burden of hearing loss in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2022; 29(8): 12009-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16582-8

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16582-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16582-8

5. McDermott HJ. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends in Amplification 2004; 8(2): 49-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/108471380400800203

https://doi.org/10.1177/108471380400800203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/108471380400800203

6. Zeng F-G. Celebrating the one millionth cochlear implant. JASA Express Letters 2022; 2(7). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0012825

https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0012825 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0012825

7. Wilson BS, Finley CC, Lawson DT, Wolford RD, Eddington DK, Rabinowitz WM. Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature 1991; 352(6332): 236-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/352236a0

https://doi.org/10.1038/352236a0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/352236a0

8. Glassman J, Jordan T, Sheu J-J, Pakulski L, Thompson A. Health status of adults with hearing loss in the United States. Audiology Research 2021; 11(1): 100-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres11010011

https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres11010011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres11010011

9. Lima JVdS, de Morais CFM, Zamberlan-Amorim NE, Mandra PP, Reis ACMB. Neurocognitive function in children with cochlear implants and hearing aids: a systematic review. Frontiers in Neuroscience 2023; 17: 1242949. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1242949

https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1242949 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1242949

10. Wolfe J, Schafer E. Programming cochlear implants: Plural Publishing; 2014.

11. Killan CF, Hoare DJ, Katiri R, et al. A scoping review of studies comparing outcomes for children with severe hearing loss using hearing aids to children with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing 2022; 43(2): 290-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001104

https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001104

12. Hochmair I, Nopp P, Jolly C, et al. MED-EL cochlear implants: state of the art and a glimpse into the future. Trends in Amplification 2006; 10(4): 201-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713806296720

https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713806296720 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713806296720

13. Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG, Harris MS, Moberly AC. Three challenges for future research on cochlear implants. World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2018; 3(4): 240-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wjorl.2017.12.010

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wjorl.2017.12.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wjorl.2017.12.010

14. Elsayed SMA. Assessment of speech perception abilities in cochlear implant children. Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2022; 34(122): 155-161.

https://doi.org/10.22038/IJORL.2022.60164.3070

15. Sadikovna PRX. Stages of pedagogical and psychological rehabilitation of children with cochlear implants with hearing impairments. International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research 2022; 11(11): 192-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2278-4853.2022.00276.2

16. Kim AS, Betz JF, Nieman CL, et al. Long‐term Impact of Hearing Aid Provision or Cochlear Implantation on Hearing Handicap. The Laryngoscope 2021; 131(5): 1122-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29175

https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29175 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.29175

17. Richter ME, Rooth MA, Dillon MT. Influence of matching the processing delays of cochlear implant and hearing aid devices for bimodal listeners on speech recognition in noise. American Journal of Audiology 2024; 33(4): 1350-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00026

https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00026

18. Illg A, Lenarz T. Cochlear implantation in hearing-impaired elderly: clinical challenges and opportunities to optimise outcome. Frontiers in Neuroscience 2022; 16: 887719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.887719

https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.887719 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.887719

19. Malhotra PS, Densky J, Melachuri M, et al. The impact of cochlear implantation on speech and language outcomes in children with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 2022; 152: 110979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2021.110979

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2021.110979 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2021.110979

20. Reid J, Dwyer RT, Agrawal S, Mitchell CM, Ouellette M, Mellon N. Investigating Bimodal Fitting Solutions in Children. American Journal of Audiology 2025; 34(2): 409-4220. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJA-24-00137 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJA-24-00137

Downloads

Published

23-08-2025

Issue

Section

Original Article

Categories

How to Cite

1.
Naseer B, Zaib W, Saqulain G, Asghar A, Tahira A, Liaquat F. Effects of Hearing Aid versus Cochlear Implant on Hearing and Speech Recognition in Children. HJPRS [Internet]. 2025 Aug. 23 [cited 2025 Oct. 21];5(2):304-9. Available from: https://thehealerjournal.com/index.php/templates/article/view/454

Similar Articles

1-10 of 84

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)