Search research articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Cochlear implants in prelingually deaf children

D E Rose¹, M Vernon, A F Pool

¹Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL., USA.

American Annals of the Deaf

|July 1, 1996

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Pediatric Cardiology Fellowship Standards for Training in Exercise Medicine and Curriculum Outline.

Pediatric cardiology·2022

Same author

Psychometric validation and responder definition of the sleep disturbance numerical rating scale in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

The British journal of dermatology·2021

Same author

In Search of a Digital Toaster.

American journal of audiology·2015

Same author

Coclear implants and the deaf culture.

American journal of audiology·2015

Same author

Intravenous immunoglobulin for resistant Clostridium difficile infection.

Age and ageing·2005

Same author

Linguistic diversity in deaf defendants and due process rights.

Journal of deaf studies and deaf education·2004

Same journal

Breaking the Cycle: How Core Self-Evaluation Shapes Cyber-Relationship Addiction.

American annals of the deaf·2026

Same journal

Eye Tracking Shows Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children with Cochlear Implants Read Like Hearing Peers.

American annals of the deaf·2026

Same journal

Interpreting in Higher Education: American Sign Language-English Interpreters' Experience of the Structural and Cultural Environment within a University.

American annals of the deaf·2026

Same journal

Itinerant Teachers' Writing Instruction.

American annals of the deaf·2026

Same journal

Integrating Worlds: An Interpretative Phenomenological Study on the Influence of Deaf Role Models as Expressed by Hearing Parents.

American annals of the deaf·2026

Same journal

Language and Pretend Actions Understanding in Children with Hearing Loss.

American annals of the deaf·2026

See all related articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Many deaf children with cochlear implants (CI) are not using them. A survey found nearly half of implanted students in US schools for the deaf stopped using their CIs, with concerns about effectiveness.

Area of Science:

Audiology
Pediatric Medicine
Special Education

Background:

Cochlear implants (CI) are advanced neuroprosthetic devices designed to provide a sense of sound to individuals with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss.
The use of CIs in prelingually deafened children has become increasingly common, aiming to improve speech perception and language development.
However, device usage rates and long-term outcomes in educational settings require ongoing investigation.

Purpose of the Study:

To determine the prevalence of cochlear implant usage among prelingually deafened students in residential and day schools for the deaf in the U.S.
To assess the proportion of students who have discontinued the use of their cochlear implants.
To gather insights into the reasons for discontinuation and user satisfaction.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

A survey was distributed to all private and public residential and day schools for the deaf in the U.S. with 100 or more students.
The survey collected data on the number of prelingually deafened students with cochlear implants and their current device usage status.
Response rates and the number of identified implanted students were recorded.

Main Results:

A 70% response rate was achieved from 64 surveyed schools, with 45 schools providing data.
Out of 151 identified students with cochlear implants, 71 (47%) were no longer using their devices.
Of the 80 students (53%) still using their implants, the survey could not definitively determine the percentage benefiting significantly versus those who did not.

Conclusions:

A significant percentage of prelingually deafened students in schools for the deaf discontinue cochlear implant use.
While many students continue to wear cochlear implants, the extent of their benefit remains undetermined by this survey.
Qualitative feedback indicated considerable user despondency regarding cochlear implant outcomes, highlighting a need for further research into effectiveness and support.