Download Ear Hear - KSHA.org

Management of Unilateral
Hearing Loss for Audiologists
and Speech Pathologists
Joey Ford, M.S., CCC-A
Megan Friedman M.S., CCC-SLP, LSLS
Cert. AVEd
1978 Northern & Downs
Hearing in Children
• Audiologists and otolaryngologists are not
usually concerned over such deafness
[unilateral], other than to identify its etiology
and assure parents that there will be no
handicap.
What has changed since 1978
• In the 1980s research really got going in this
area.
• Fowler, 1960; Harford & Barry, 1965
• Golas & Wark, 1967; Green & Henning, 1969
• There has been a steady stream of research
since the 1980s showing that UHL causes
delays and challenges in many areas.
Current Issues
• Earlier identification
– Birth vs. school age
• Little consensus among professionals
– Whether to aid at all or how to aid
• Little research on when to aid
– Is early better, if so, how early
Evidence Based Practice
• Evidence Based Practice is ever changing
– New research
• Overwhelming evidence of the detrimental effects
– New technology
• Cochlear Baha, Oticon Medical Ponto and ear-level FM
– More experience
• Patients who are successful or unsuccessful with each
technology and families who say, “I wish we had done
this sooner.”
JCIH 2007 Position Statement
• Infants and young children with unilateral hearing
loss should also be assessed for appropriateness of
hearing aid fitting. Depending on the degree of
residual hearing in unilateral loss, a hearing aid may
or may not be indicated. Use of “contralateral routing
of signals” amplification for unilateral hearing loss in
children is not recommended (American Academy of
Audiology, 2003). Research is currently underway to
determine how to best manage unilateral hearing loss
in infants and young children.
Impact of Unilataral Hearing Loss
• Localization
– 2 ears work together to find the source of sound
• The lost cell phone effect
• Binaural Squelch
– The ability of 2 ears to “tune in” to a sound
• The cocktail party effect
Effects of Unilateral Hearing Loss
• Binaural summation
– Two ears hear sound at a quieter level than each
ear individually.
• This is important for those of us with normal hearing to
remember.
• Head Shadow Effect
– Lateralized sound is received to one ear as a direct
signal, the other ear is in the “head shadow”
• Low pitch sounds wrap around the head easier than
highs
UHL in the Real World
•
•
•
•
Speech/Language
Cognitive
Social
Psychological
McLeod, Upfold, Taylor, 2008
• Self-reported difficulties of adults with UHL
– Emphasis on post-surgical vestibular schwannoma
• These adults reported significant difficulty
– Hearing in background noise
– Hearing when someone was on their “bad side”
– Localizing sound
• They also reported more difficulty even when sitting
directly across the table from someone.
Priwin, et al, 2007
• 57 subjects aged 3 to 80 with UHL (max cond)
• Conversation in quiet
– 26% had slight to moderate difficulty
• Conversation with many people
– 77% slight to moderate difficulty; 14% severe
• Conversation with one person in traffic noise
– 63% slight to moderate; 19% severe
• Localization
– 47% slight to moderate; 37% severe
Signal-to-noise ratio
• Normal hearing children require a greater SNR
than normal hearing (NH) adults to
discriminate speech (Lieu, 2004).
– Auditory cortex not fully developed
– better language base
• Children with UHL require a greater SNR than
children with NH (Ruscetta, et al, 2005).
– Think about your child’s classroom.
– A child at recess
– A child at Pump It Up or Chuck E. Cheese
Speech and Language
• Shepard et al., 1981
–
–
–
–
1250 children in Iowa with hearing loss
Academic records were reviewed
Preschool through high school
Categorized by degree and type of loss
Shepard et al., 1981
• For children with minimal hearing loss
– IQ and achievement test scores were only slightly
reduced compared to normal hearing peers, if at
all.
– Large gap between language age and chronological
age, which increased with grade level
• By age 8, the vocabulary of some of these children was
as much as 3 years behind that of their normal hearing
peers.
Shepard et al., 1981
• Specifically, those with UHL exhibited
– Smaller vocabulary
– Less complex sentence structure
• Incidental learning
– Over hearing
Davis, et al., 1986
• Evaluated social, academic and
communication status of 40 children age 5-18
with losses from mild to moderately severe.
– Found that their scores on standard audiologic
speech perception tests was highly correlated with
degree of loss.
– Similar correlation was not seen between degree of
loss and several language measures.
• Corroborated by Bess & Tharpe 1986, for reading, math
and spelling scores of children with unilateral loss only.
Educational/Cognitive Impact
• Bess, et al., 1998
– Reviewed the records of 1228 children in grades 3,
6 and 9.
• 5.4% of those children had minimal hearing loss
• 30% of the 3rd graders with minimal hearing loss had
repeated a grade
• By 9th grade, 50% had repeated a grade
Bess and Tharpe 1986
• 60 children with unilateral SNHL
• Reviewed medical & educational records
– Mean age of ID 5.5 years
– Etiology: 52% unknown, 24% viruses,
15% meningitis, 8% head trauma
– Of the 60 children
• 35% had failed at least one grade
• 13% got resource help one or more years
• 20% exhibited behavior problems per teacher report
Educational/Cognitive Impact
• Culbertson & Gilbert, 1986
– Found significant differences between IQ scores of
children with severe to profound unilateral SNHL
and those with mild to moderate unilateral SNHL.
Multi-Tasking
• McFadden & Pittman, 2008
– 10 kids with minimal loss/10 with normal hearing
• Unilateral, mild bilateral or high frequency
– Categorized common words (primary task)
while completing dot-to-dot games (secondary
task)
McFadden & Pittman, 2008
• The dot rate of both groups decreased similarly
when the primary task was introduced
• The hearing impaired kids performed
significantly worse than the normal hearing
controls on the word categorization
– The children may be unable to draw resources
from other tasks to respond to a difficult listening
situation.
– They also may be unable to prioritize tasks.
Psychosocial Impact
• Multiple studies going back to Giolas & Wark,
1967, report psychosocial sequelea of
unilateral hearing loss.
– Embarrassment, helplessness, withdraw,
aggression, frustration and isolation
• Stein, 1983
– Teachers and parents rated behavior
• 42% aggression and withdraw
• 37% lower than peers on interpersonal and social
adjustment
Psychosocial Impact
• Bess et al, 1998
– 6th and 9th graders with minimal hearing loss
– COOP (Cooperative Information Project
Adolescent Chart Method)
• Assess physical, emotional and social functioning
– Found significantly more dysfunction for tweens with minimal
hearing loss than their normal hearing peers
» Less energy
» Tired more frequently
» Stress
» Social support
» Self-esteem
Psychosocial Impact
•
•
•
•
Borton, Mauze & Lieu, 2010
Children 6-17 years and their parents
Health Related Quality of Life survey
Survey had a control group of NH and those
with bilateral loss
• Focus groups for those with UHL
Psychosocial Impact
• Found that children with UHL had
significantly more variance in the social
functioning score than children with normal
hearing or those with bilateral loss.
• Both parents and children with UHL rated
social functioning lower than children with
normal hearing or bilateral loss.
Psychosocial Impact
• Focus groups found
– Children didn’t notice differences as much as their
parents did.
– Parents suggested that difficulties got worse as
their children aged and got into sports, etc.
– Parents felt that teachers were not educated about
UHL and their children suffered as a result.
– Assistive technology was seen as a barrier to being
“normal”.
Psychosocial Impact
• Focus Group discussion
– “[Sometimes I have] hollow moments, where
there’s not really anything I can hear. A lot of
times I stare off into space, which doubles not
being able to hear. So, if I’m not paying attention
and there is a lot of noise around or if I’m just not
expecting someone to talk to me, I just go
completely deaf.
• Listening Effort
Psychosocial Effects
• Bourland-Hicks & Tharpe, 2002
– Examined listening effort and fatigue in children
with minimal to moderate loss
• Compared to normal hearing peers there was no
difference in fatigue, but significant difference in
listening effort for both quiet and noise
Right vs. Left Differences?
• Sininger & de Bode, 2008
– Auditory areas of the right hemisphere (left ear)
are specialized for spectral processing of tonal
stimuli and music.
– Areas of the left auditory hemisphere (right ear)
are primarily for processing temporally complex
and rapidly changing stimuli like speech.
• Lefties can be opposite (only righties in study)
• Males more often than females are opposite
– men=women in study
Sininger & de Bode, 2008
• Used gap detection testing of tonal stimuli and
noise stimuli in each ear independently
– The right ear showed an overwhelming advantage
for noise.
– Left ear a smaller advantage for tones.
• The smaller gap in milliseconds was required to detect a
change.
• True for normal hearing or unilateral loss.
Sininger & de Bode, 2008
• Contralateral ear compensation
– Occurs to some degree in late onset loss
– Does not occur in congenital/very early onset loss
• Sininger & de Bode, 2008
Sininger & de Bode, 2008
• Children with unilateral loss who have failed
at least one grade at school are 5 times more
likely to have right ear loss.
– Oyler, et al., 1988
– Bess, et al., 1986
– Klee & Davis-Dansky, 1986
Right vs. Left Differences
•
•
•
•
Niedzielski, et al, 2006
Evaluated 64 children with UHL
Mean age was 11 years
Both those with right loss and left loss
achieved average intelligence on a full scale
IQ test.
• But, if you look at the scores from each
subtest, significant differences exist.
Niedzielski, et al, 2006
• Those with right-sided loss scored signficantly
lower on the verbal test compared to those
with left-sided loss.
– Most pronounced in the subtests of similarities,
vocabulary and comprehension.
• Smaller range of concepts, lower skills for learning
verbal material and smaller abilities to use acquired
knowledge in everyday situations.
Niedzielski, et al, 2006
• Those with left-sided loss scored more poorly
on the non-verbal scale.
– Particulary in the subtests of block design and
object assembly.
• Poorer abilities for analyzing, synthesizing, visual
memory, spatial imagination and visual-motor
coordination.
Management Options
• No technology, self advocacy, coping skills
• Hearing Aid
– Conventional aid for aidable loss or CROS
• FM system
– Ear level
– Soundfield
• Cochlear Baha or Oticon Medical Ponto
• Cochlear Implant – maybe down the road
No Assistive Technology
•
•
•
•
•
The most popular option until recently
Advantageous positioning
Controlling background noise
Asking for repeats
Utilizing other assistive devices like tape
recorders in lectures or borrowing a friends
notes
Hearing Aid
• Conventional Aid
– Moderately-severe or better hearing
– Use when appropriate
• Classroom
• Dinner party
• Group Discussion
– Include auto noise program when possible
– High non-use rate
CROS Hearing Aid
• Does provide sound from the impaired ear
• Requires a hearing aid on the normal hearing
ear, as well
• Aid on the normal hearing ear is quite large
including DAI door and FM receiver
• High non-use and return rate
FM system
• Designed for classroom use
– Does very well for it’s intended purpose
• One speaker
• Improvement in signal to noise ratio
– Requires 2 users
• Speaker and listener to use the equipment consistently
and correctly
– Positioning of mic
– Correct settings
– Jewelry, clothing noise, restroom breaks, aside conversations
FM Options
• Soundfield
– Benefits teacher and students with and without loss
– Stationary
• Desktop
– Benefits one or a few students
– Portable, but with limitations
• Ear level
– Very portable and discreet
Ear Level FM
Ear Level FM
Baha
• Can be implanted age 5 and over
• Can be worn on hard or soft headband
• Provides mic and stimulation on the same side
– Provides “pseudo stereo hearing”
– Can be used with any degree of conductive loss or
profound unilateral sensorineural loss
• User is in control of use, volume & program
How do Baha & Ponto work?
Baha/Ponto
Baha Abutment
Linstrom, Silverman & Yu, 2009
• 7 adults with adult onset profound UHL
– Implanted with Baha Compact
• 20 adults with normal hearing
• Goal=examine long-term efficacy
– Speech recognition in noise
– Subjective satisfaction
– Assessed at 1 month, 6 months, 1 year post-Baha
Linstrom, Silverman & Yu, 2009
• HINT
– Noise in the front, speech to each side
– Speech in the front, noise to each side
• Noise at 65 dBA
– Significant advantage with Baha when speech was
lateralized to the affected ear
• SNR improved by 3.9 dB in directional mode
• SNR improved by 3.1 dB in the omnidirectional mode
– For a performance-intensity function of 10%/dB
the omnidirectional Baha yields a 39% gain in
speech intelligibility and the directional 31%.
Linstrom, Silverman & Yu, 2009
• The Baha had a disadvantage over the unaided
condition when noise was delivered to the
affected ear, especially in omni mode.
– The disadvantage was not as great as the advantage
seen in the opposite condition.
– This is a point for patient and family counseling.
Linstrom, Silverman & Yu, 2009
• APHAB
– After pooling scores, the Baha condition was
significantly better than unaided condition in all
but one subtest
• Background noise*
• Ease of Communication
• Reverberation
– Aversiveness subtest did not show a significant
difference, but tended toward Baha creating more
unpleasant background noise.
Linstrom, Silverman & Yu, 2009
• Single-Sided Deafness Questonnaire
– 5 point scale
– Questions
• Use
– How many days per week
– How many hours per day
• overall quality of life
– Has it improved due to the Baha
• situational improvement
– Talking to one person
– Listening to music
– Listening to TV/Radio
Linstrom, Silverman & Yu, 2009
• Summary responses
– Median response scores reveal that the Baha had a
positive impact on each item
• None of the tests in this study changed
significantly over time from 1 month to 1 year
post Baha fitting.
Lin, et al, 2006
• 23 adults with UHL
• CROS for 1 month
• Implanted with Baha
– Consistently better patient satisfaction with Baha
– Directional hearing was unchanged with Baha, but
was worse with CROS
– Baha provided significantly better speech
recognition in noise.
Christensen, et al, 2010
• 23 children with implanted Bahas
• Pre-implant HINT scores
– 42% @ 0, 76% @ +5 and 95% @ +10
• Post-implant
– 82% @ 0, 97% @ +5 and 99% @ +10
• CHILD scores improved
– Patient 4.49 to 7.10
– Parent 4.60 to 6.90
House, et al, 2010
• Adults with unilateral loss
– 68 with Baha, 61 unaided
• No significant differences on Speech, Spatial
and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ)
• Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit
–
–
–
–
Overall scores were better with Baha
Most improvement in Background Noise 17.4%
Reverberation subscale improved 13.2%
Ease of Communication improved 11.6%
Tringali, et al, 2008
• Recorded ABRs in 10 adults with implanted
Bahas.
– Adult onset acute profound UHL after vestibular
schwannoma removal
– Stimulus delivered in the free field at 80 dB
• Recorded from the healthy ear
– Speaker to the healthy ear with and without contralateral Baha
– Speaker to the affected ear with and without the Baha
» Healthy ear occluded
Tringali, et al, 2008
• When the sound was delivered via Baha wave
I was absent and waves III and V were
significantly longer than when the nonaffected ear was stimulated directly.
– So, your brain really may actually be able tell the
difference between sounds coming into the Baha
vs. the ear.
Baha/Ponto
• Lots more research corroborates what I have
presented today.
• One or two studies show an improvement in
localization, but the vast majority show no
statistically significant improvement.
• All of them show that subjective benefit is
much higher than objective audiologic test
booth benefit would suggest.
– This reveals the limitations of test booth measures
for unilateral hearing loss.
The Right Choice
• Family and child centered decision
– Lifestyle
– Current concern or lack thereof
– Education and empowerment
• Whatever choice you make today may not be the right
choice tomorrow and we can change at any time.
• The right choice may be a combination such as Baha
and FM.
What We Haven’t Covered
• Neural plasticity
– Auditory deprivation causes changes in the
structure of the neural pathways.
• Hanss, et al, 2009; Schmithorst, et al, 2005
• Cochlear implants in unilateral deafness
– Has been performed on those with debilitating
tinnitus
• All 20 implanted use their CIs all day every day
• The SSQ improvement was highly significant
• Hearing in noise improved by 3.8 dB
Case Example 1
• P.F.
–
–
–
–
–
Head trauma at age 15
Right unilateral aidable hearing loss
Not interested in amplification
Returned to clinic at age 20
Fit with a hearing aid – LOVES IT
• +5 SNR 88% unaided; 100% aided
Case Example 2
• R.F.
– Prelingual unilateral profound loss
– Uses no assistive technology
– Uses environmental adjustments
• Controlling noise
• Advantageous positioning
– Rick on the right
R.F.
• Has difficulty localizing sounds
– Can’t find his ringing cell phone
• Has difficulty hearing in the car
– Can’t converse while the radio is on
– Can’t converse while the window is down
• Difficulty hearing from a distance
– Must be very loud for him to hear from another
floor.
Case Example 3
• A.C.
– Six years old
– Congential unilateral maximum conductive loss
– Difficulty in school
• almost qualifies for special services, but not quite
• Discussion of holding her back last year
– Difficulty in social situations
• “I can’t hear the other girls”
• “I can’t hear on the playground”
A.C.
• Used FM in kindergarten, but school personnel
thought she no longer needed it
• Family concerned that she comes home crying
because she can’t hear at school
• Mom reports that Bailey “seems autistic” in
noisy places – withdraws, doesn’t seem to
know what’s going on around her, can’t seem
to engage with others.
A.C.
• Family decided to try the ear level FM
• Bailey loved it from the first moment
– Described all of the new sounds she was hearing
• The dog panting
– She did not like the fact that she could only hear
one speaker at a time.
– She still couldn’t hear the girls on the playground
– The teacher didn’t always use it or use it properly
A.C.
• After her parents saw what a difference the FM
made for Bailey, they decided to get the Baha.
• She wears it on a softband until after her ear
reconstruction surgery.
• Within days she was saying
– Put the hearing thing on me so I can hear
– When I don’t have it on everything is quite. When
I have it on its louder and they are talking (TV).
A.C.
• Still has more difficulty in background noise.
• They are still having trouble getting buy-in
from the school.
• She is getting speech/language therapy at
school and privately with a HI specialist.
• Her mom told me, “My only regret is not
getting it for her a lot sooner.”
I.V.
•
•
•
•
Teenage boy
Unilateral profound SNHL
Not interested in Baha
Wears CROS
– Not fond of it, but knows he needs help hearing
• +5 SNR 80% unaided; 92% with CROS
Eligibility
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act of 2004 (IDEA)
– Typically under Part C children 0 to 3 years with UHL
qualify for services whether they have a slight delay, none
at all, or a severe delay
– Under Part B (section 619) children 3 to 5 years with UHL
only qualify for services if their scores fall 1.5 and
sometimes 2 standard deviations below normal limits
• Often times children with UHL do not qualify for
services just at the time when the listening environment
and academic needs are becoming more difficult
Evaluation Process
• There is no standard set of diagnostic tests at
this time for UHL.
• The following are suggestions and should be
completed over multiple sessions depending
on the age of the student
Evaluation
• Sit on hearing ear side for best results
• Review of most recent audiogram
• CELF-4-overall language evaluation
– Subtests and item analysis
– “swiss cheese” students
• PLS-4—overall language evaluation for younger
listeners
• Cottage Acquisition Scales for Listening, Language
& Speech (CASLLS) ~ Sunshine Cottage School for
Deaf Children—Criterion Referenced overall
language evaluation
Evaluation
• Integrated Scales of Development (from Listen
Learn and Talk by Cochlear)
• Auditory Skills Curriculum Model (John Tracy
Clinic)
• EOWPVT—expressive vocabulary test
• PPVT-IV—receptive vocabulary test
• GFTA-2—Articulation test
• Conversation/language sample with/without noise
– Communication abilities: turn taking, providing enough
details, staying on topic, etc.
Evaluation
• Audition assessment (with/without background
noise)
– Model for listening ~ detection, discrimination,
identification, comprehension (Estabrooks, 1998).
• Listening check using Ling 6 sounds at a distance of 30,
12, and 6 ft. with and without background noise
• Informal 1-3 step direction tasks
• 1-4 item memory/critical element task
• Ability to detect and localize sounds
• Ability to discriminate between
suprasegmentals/prosodic features (pitch, intensity,
duration, rate, stress) (Ling, 1976, 1989)
Evaluation
• Ability to discriminate between 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 syllable
words
• Ability to discriminate between words that differ in
initial/final consonants by manner, voicing, place (in
sentences is easier)
– Auditory Perception Test for the Hearing Impaired—Susan
Allen
– Test of Auditory-Perceptual Skills-3 (TAPS-R)—
standardized auditory processing test
– Auditory Processing Abilities Test (APAT)--standardized
Evaluation
• Parent interview
–
–
–
–
Pediatric case history form
Do they communicate with peers? Have many friends?
Are they often fatigued?
In general how well do they listen? Do they often
misinterpret conversations? Can they follow discussions at
the dinner table?
– How do they handle noisy environments? (restaurant,
sporting events, cafeteria)
– Are they able to localize in different environments?
– How are their grades?
Evaluation
• Other factors to consider
–
–
–
–
–
–
Cognitive abilities
Co-occurring developmental disabilities
Socioeconomic status
Abundance of language stimulation in the home
Quality of child care environment
Recurrent otitis media with effusion
Behaviors SLP/Teachers May See
• Avoiding a certain class or activity (especially large
group situations) because it is too difficult to
hear/understand what others are saying
• Fatigue, less energy, complaints of headaches, pains,
etc. especially in noisy environments
• Limited understanding of humor (riddles, jokes,
idioms, slang).
• Gives up easily
• Daydreaming
• Distractible
Behaviors SLP/Teachers May See
• Social-Emotional behaviors
– Misbehaves to get attention typically because they are
frustrated
– May be aggressive towards peers
– Makes fewer initiations with peers
– Inappropriate interactions with peers
• May miss part or all of a conversation and therefore misinterpret
the message, which may lead to a misunderstanding
– Isolate themselves in large group activities
– Quick change in emotions (sudden crying to giggling)
Behaviors SLP/Teachers May See
• Appears to have selective hearing
– When the student is unsure of what to do, especially when
given multi-step directions, they will watch and follow
peers.
– The student may have difficulty listening and completing a
task at the same time.
– Sounds are often audible to the child, but many times the
sound or messages, particularly speech sounds, are not
intelligible or understood
• Students have to be trained to advocate for their needs and
understand and recognize when they are missing a message and
how they can receive the message in a better way.
Suggested strategies for working
with students with UHL
• There is a lack of published guidelines for
working with infants and children with UHL
– Therapy/SLP
• Some one-on-one therapy and some group therapy
every week depending on needs of student.
• Some auditory-oral training for the SLP would be ideal.
• Students must consistently wear/use their hearing
devices as long as they are beneficial to the student and
programmed appropriately.
Strategies
• Therapist typically sits on the side of the child’s hearing
ear unless the therapy session is specifically targeting
working on listening in noise.
• Ask “What did you hear?” to check for understanding
and have the student repeat back word definitions and/or
directions
• Do not accept one word answers (“tell me in a
sentence”)
• Speak naturally in a clear voice, at a regular rate.
Don’t exaggerate!
Strategies
• Present information, questions, etc. auditory first (hand
cue use = a cue to listen!) and then use a visual cue if
the student still needs help to understand.
• Practice listening in noisy situations (outside, with door
open, with radio on, with 2 speaker babble, with 4
speaker babble)
• Allow listening breaks if a glazed / flat expression, or
inappropriate social behaviors occur
• Conduct the Ling 6 (ah, oo, ee, sh, s, m) “test” twice
daily to check for proper function of hearing devices
Strategies
• During therapy sessions be sure to get the student’s attention
before giving directions.
• Ask open-ended questions (To please teachers they will
answer yes/no questions with “yes”)
• Paraphrase and reword directions etc. if the child does not
understand the first time
• Incorporate reading as often as possible and be sure to point
out new vocabulary and discuss objects in several different
ways (synonyms/antonyms).
Strategies
• Encourage the student to be responsible for personal
things (including trouble shooting hearing aids, Baha
and FM) as well as a responsible listener.
– They need to be made accountable for what their peers
and teachers say as well as what they themselves produce
verbally.
– Have the student present on their FM system and hearing
devices to the class (i.e. make a power point or
demonstrate how their devices work)
Strategies
A child with a unilateral hearing loss requires close
observation and daily informal evaluation to determine
their areas of need.
Often times they appear to be functioning at a high level
compared to children with greater losses or at a moderate to
low level compared to their hearing peers.
They still have difficulty with basic language structures, word
meaning, and/ or speech sounds that are often passed over
or not noticed in a larger classroom environment or in a
group therapy situation.
Strategies
• Students must be encouraged to advocate for themselves at
all times. The following are suggestions for students to use
throughout their daily activities and should be a part of
therapy goals:
– *Classroom Behaviors: Strategies for learning in a large group
1. Focus on your teacher and listen.
2. Watch the teacher.
3. Watch whoever is talking.
4. Raise your hand and wait your turn.
5. Stay on topic.
6. Join in group responses.
7. Use a repair strategy if you don’t understand or you didn’t hear, or
check with your neighbor to find out what you missed.
8. If you can’t see, move.
9. Sit the correct way.
10.Keep your hands to yourself.
Strategies
• Repair Strategies: Asking for repetition
1.Can you repeat that?
2.I didn’t understand you.
3.Will you tell me again?
4.What did you say?
5.What?
6.I didn’t hear you.
7.I don’t know what you said.
Strategies
• Repair Strategies: Asking for clarification
1.I didn’t understand you.
2.Can you say that clearer?
3.Can you say it slower?
4.Did you say ______?
5.Did you say “cat” or “bat”?
6.Can you come closer to me?
Strategies
• Repair Strategies: Asking for more
information
1.What does ____ mean?
2.I don’t know what ______ means.
3.Can you tell me what you’re talking about?
4.Who are you talking to?
– From: Self Advocacy: A Curriculum For Creating
Independence ~ Carrie Bauza, M.S. --Child’s
Voice School
Strategies
• Classroom/Teachers
– Guide and encourage other staff members to learn
more and work with you regarding the strategies
on how to best work with the student and what
behaviors to look out for
• Have a mini inservice at the beginning of the school
year to prepare the faculty on how to use equipment.
Strategies
• Have the classroom teacher fill out a questionnaire at
the beginning, middle and end of the school year to help
monitor classroom behaviors and impressions of student
(SIFTER—Screening Instrument for Targeting
Educational Risk—K. Anderson).
• Ensure there is an understanding of school and
classroom rules and that your expectations are the same
for all students.
• When there are consequences for inappropriate
behaviors, check for understanding
Strategies
• Speak one-on-one with student to check for comprehension
during instructional times (when possible)
• Try to get the student’s attention by calling his or her name
before giving instructions/directions (allow noise level in
room to decrease—then repeat instructions if necessary).
• Have a nonverbal cue that can be used to regain attention
(tap on the shoulder followed by eye contact) if the student
seems inattentive so that they know to watch whoever is
talking.
Strategies
– The teacher repeats answers from other students (saying the
name of who asked the question as well) so that the student
with hearing loss is sure to hear the answer and better able
to participate in group discussions.
– Present spelling words and directions in short sentences
during test time to help the student discriminate between
words
– Language and speech should be integrated throughout
curriculum, daily routine and individual therapy.
Strategies
– Allow for pre-teaching at home
• Provide a list of vocabulary words, spelling words, and
upcoming assignments for each subject area, new unit
or story that can be reviewed at home—ex. Parents or
SLP can check that the student is discriminating
between spelling words before the test is given
(cake/take etc.)
• Have parents explain new words or phrases that are
abstract at home so the student is already familiar with
terms when they are learning at school.
• If possible provide a set of books at home
Strategies
– Classroom Buddy-ex. tell the student when it’s
time to line up at the end of recess or it was page
124 in our reading book
– Use captioning during movies or videos
– Write assignments and directions on board after
presenting auditorily (don’t write on board and talk
at the same time).
– The student may need additional wait time before
answering question or following directions
especially if they have a right side loss.
Strategies
– Use a personal FM system and/or soundfield
system during academics, assemblies, specials, etc.
– Preferential seating in the classroom (front right
side if hearing loss is on left side and front left side
if hearing loss is on right side)
– Encourage everyone in the class to ask the
meaning of unknown words, or concepts.
Strategies
• Environmental and Acoustic Modifications ~
decrease reverberation, background noise, and
distance
– Reduce noise level (rustling papers, ventilation
system, pencil sharpener) to help acoustically
control the environment
– Place student in the class that has less “open” class
teaching
Strategies
– Use thick window treatments (thick materials)
– Area rugs if there is no wall-to-wall carpet
– Avoid hard surfaces whenever possible
(corkboard)
– Use tennis balls or rubber tips on the bottoms of
chairs
Strategies
– Use soft seating (bean bag chairs) in play or leisure
areas
– Use creative artwork such as decorated egg crates,
material or rug strips and Styrofoam balls hung
from the ceiling to dampen noise levels
– Try to keep doors and windows closed
Communication with parents
(home and school)
• Parents attend a therapy session once a week where
they are coached and guided on how to carry-over
strategies, techniques, sounds, etc. at home.
• Encourage parents to become aware of their child’s
listening environments and how to manage them
– Reduce “technology” noise in house (TV,
background music etc.)
– Talk into hearing ear and keep loud noises away
from hearing ear
Communication with Parents
– Raise your voice slightly and face the child when
at a greater distance (walking a child in a stroller)
– Play listening games and expand the child’s
vocabulary by using multiple adjectives etc.
– Involve siblings, family members and friends to
practice group activities and games so the child
gets more experience with different voices,
contexts and distance listening.
Communication with Parents
– Narrate your daily routine and get your child’s
attention and make sure that the child is able to
listen before talking to them and starting a
conversation.
– Safety issues with localization.
• Encourage parent-to-parent support: Providing
parents with contact information for organizations
of parents with children who have UHL (list-serves
can be helpful)
Communication with Parents
• Keep a notebook that can go between home and
school where both parties can ask questions and/or
share concerns if face to face meetings or a phone call
are not options
• Present an unbiased list of intervention approaches
that includes information about speech and language
development, functional auditory skill development,
amplification and visual forms of communication
Communication with Parents
• Share any changes in behavior/health/hearing,
social-emotional
• Parents get nervous when the SLP or Teacher
says everything is fine every day.
– The parents may often feel that you might be
missing something or not catching issues that may
be affecting the students overall education.
Goal Ideas
• Auditory
– Sequencing multi-element directions with more difficult
concepts (Sit down at your desk, get out your reading book
and turn to page 10 or Put the thick blue square behind the
empty jug) in noise
– Listening to a story one time with no visual cues in noise
and
• Identifying necessary vs. unnecessary information from stories
• Retelling the story/summarizing in sequence using 5 or more
sentences
• Identify the main idea
• Identify the main idea
Goal Ideas
– Imitating a 7-9 word sentence including
morphological markers (‘s, s, past tense etc.)
without changing word order or omitting any
words or word structures.
– Identifying 4-5 critical elements in noise. (i.e., Put
the blue square behind the empty basket)
– Developing an ability to use their auditory
feedback loop by attempting to self-correct
articulation and syntax errors in spontaneous
verbal productions in structured tasks
Goals
– Increasing the ability to listen the first time in
noise.
– Increasing the ability to paraphrase remarks of
other speakers in noise.
– Discriminating between vowel sounds (mit vs. met
or win vs. one)
Goal Ideas
• Self-advocacy
– Asking for repetition, clarification or more information
from peers or adults, using repair language, during class
discussions when she doesn’t understand (e.g. I didn’t hear,
Could you repeat?, I didn’t understand a word., I heard you
say _____., Can you tell me what you’re talking about?,
What does ____ mean?).
– Asking for repetition, clarification or more information
from the teacher/therapist when she does not understand a
word, direction, or assignment during class time.
Goal Ideas
– Identifying when listening conditions are not
optimal and advocating for themselves (ex.
Shutting the door, changing seating positions,
asking for repetition or clarification)
– Demonstrating an ability to troubleshoot problems
with Baha, hearing aid and/or personal FM system
and notifying teacher/parents/therapist when
equipment is not working properly.
– Explaining how equipment works to peers and
adults.
Goal Ideas
• Receptive
– Increase the ability to understand figurative
language (idioms/homophones/jokes)
– Identifying novel vocabulary words and asking for
a definition/looking them up in a dictionary
– Understanding 10 new vocabulary words per
reading unit.
Goal Ideas
• Expressive
– Developing her ability to do the following during
conversation in the classroom and in a one-on-one
setting:
•
•
•
•
Maintaining topic
Taking 10 turns
Providing appropriate/sufficient details/info.
Checking for listener comprehension (e.g. Do you
understand? Do you know what I mean?)
• Attending to listener feedback
Goal Ideas
• Providing information in a logical order
• Understanding when the topic has changed
• Asking appropriate questions in response to a
topic
• Increasing vocal intensity to a 5 on the Likert
Scale (1-5)
– Using 10 new vocabulary words per reading
unit.
Goal Ideas
• Articulation
– Discriminating between first and then producing
the following sounds in all positions of words.
• /b/ vs. /d/
• /m/ vs. /n/
– Producing the following sounds in all positions of
words in conversation with 90% accuracy.
• /s/ (decrease nasalization)
• ‘th’
• /l/ blends
Resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tools for Schools by Advanced Bionics
The Listening Room (Hearingjourney.com by Advanced Bionic)
Agbell.com (Alexander Graham Bell Association/AG Bell Academy)
Otocon, Inc.
Auditory Options.com
www.cochlear.com (Cochlear Americas)
www.oraldeafed.org
www.hearingexchange.com
www.learningtolisten.org
www.listen-up.org
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Culbertson, J. L., & Gilbert, L. E. (1986). Children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss:
cognitive, academic and social development. Ear and Hearing, 7, 38-42.
Hicks, C.B. & Tharpe, A.M. (2002). Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with
and without hearing loss. Journal of Speech-Language and Hearing Research, 45 (3) 573-584.
Holstrum, W.J., Gaffney, M., Gravel, J.S., Oyler, R.F., Ross, D.S. (2008). Early intervention
for children with unilateral and mild bilateral degrees of hearing loss. Trends In Amplification,
12(1), 35-41.
Howard, D.,www.eartroubles.com
Lieu, J. E. (2004). Speech-language and educational consequences of unilateral hearing loss
in children, Archives Otolaryngology Head Neck Surgery, 13, 524-530.
Lieu, J.E., Tye-Murray, N., Karzon, R.K., Piccirillo. J.F. (2010). Unilateral hearing loss is
associated with worse speech-language scores in children. Pediatrics, 125 (6), 1348-55.
McKay, S., (2006). Management of young children with unilateral hearing loss. The Volta
Review, 106(3), 299-319.
McLeod, B., Upfold, L., Taylor, A. (2008). Self reported hearing difficulties following
excision of vestibular schwannoma. International Journal of Audiology, 47:420-30.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
References
Oyler, R. F., Oyler, A. L., & Matkin N. D. (1987, Sept.). Warning: A unilateral hearing loss
may be detrimental to a child's academic career. The Hearing Journal, 18-22.
Priwin, C., Jonsson, R., Magnusson, L., Hultcrantz, M., Granstrom, G. (2007). Audiological
evaluation and self-assessed hearing problems in subjects with single-sided congenital
external ear malformations and associated conductive hearing loss.
Sinninger Y, de Bode S. (2009). Asymmetry of temporal processing in listeners with normal
hearing and unilaterally deaf subjects. Ear Hear. 29(2):228-238.
Stein, D. 1983. Psychosocial characteristics of schoolage children with unilateral hearing
losses. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology 16:12–22.
Strive and Thrive: A Guide for Parents-School Readiness Hints and Tips, Cochlear Americas.
Borton, S., Mauze, E., Lieu, J. (2010). Quality of life in children with unilateral hearing loss:
a pilot study. American Journal of Audiology. 19:61-72.
Cho Lieu, J E. (2004). Speech-Language and educational consequences of unilateral hearing
loss in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 130:524-530.
Hanss, J., Veuillet, E., Adjout, K., Besle, J., Collet, L., Thai-Van, H. (2009). The effect of
long-term unilateral deafness on the activation pattern in the auditory cortices of Frenchnative speakers: influence of deafness side. BMC Neuroscience, 10:23.
McFadden B, Pittman A. Effect of minimal hearing loss on children’s ability to multitask in
quiet and in noise. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2008;39(3):342-351.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Schmithorst, V., Holland, S., Ret, J., Duggins, A., Arjmand, E., Greinwald, J. (2005). Cortical
reorganization in children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Neuroreport, 16 (5):4637.
Shepard NT, Davis JM, Gorga MP, Stelmachowicz PG. (1981). Characteristics of hearing
impaired children in the public schools: part I--demographic data. J Speech Hear Disord.
46(2):123-129.
Niedzielski, A., Humeniuk, E., Przemyslaw, B., Gwizda, G. (2006). International Journal of
Pediatric Otolaryngology. 70:1529-32.
Linstrom, C., Silverman, C., Yu, G. (2009). Efficiacy of the bone-anchored hearing aid for
single-sided deafness. The Laryngoscope. 119:713-20.
Christensen, L., Richter, G., Dornhoffer, J. (2010). Update on bone-anchored hearing aids in
pediatric patients with profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Archives of
Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. 136(2):175-7.
House, J., Kutz, J., Chung, J., Fisher, L. (2010) Bone-anchored hearing aid subjective benefit
for unilateral deafness. The Laryngoscope. 120: 601-7.
Tringali, S., Marzin, A., Dubreuil, C., Ferber-Viart, C. (2008). Bone-anchored hearing aid in
unilateral inner ear deafness: electrophysiological results in patients following vestibular
schwannoma removal. Acta Oto-Laryngologica. 128:1203-10.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bess FH, Dodd-Murphy J, Parker RA. (1998). Children with minimal sensorineural hearing
loss: prevalence, educational performance, and functional status. Ear Hearing. 19:339-354.
Golas T, Wark D. (1967)Communication problems associated with unilateral hearing loss. J
Speech Hear Disord. 41:336-343.
Klee TM, Davis-Dansky E. (1986). A comparison of unilaterally hearing-impaired children
and normal-hearing children on a battery of standardized language tests. Ear Hear. 7(1):27–
37.
Hartvig Jenson J, Borre S, Johansen PA. (1989). Unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in
children: cognitive abilities with respect to right/left ear differences. Br J Audiology. 23:215220.
Cremers C, Hol M, Kunst S, Leijendeckers J, Mylans E, Snik A. (2008). Subjective benefit
after BAHA system application. Otol Neurotol. (3):353-358.
Bess FH, Tharpe, AM.(1986). Case history data on unilateral hearing-impaired children. Ear
Hear. 7:14-19.