Maria Huber
Hyo-Jeong Lee
Margreet Langereis
Anneke Vermeulen3- 1Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria
- 2Department of Otolaryngology, Hallym University Medical Center, Chuncheon, South Korea
- 3Research Department, Pento Speech and Hearing Centres, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Editorial on the Research Topic
Quality of life in young cochlear implant recipients: Are there controlling factors and regional differences?
Severe and profound childhood hearing loss is a medical condition that can affect the functional development of the brain (Manno et al., 2021; Calmels et al., 2022; Grégoire et al., 2022) and quality of life (QoL). Untreated childhood hearing loss can have consequences beyond the acquisition of spoken language (Blamey et al., 2001; Anne et al., 2017). Not only communication and social interaction (Lieu et al., 2020), as well as self-image (Theunissen et al., 2014), can be affected, but also cognition (Martínez-Cruz et al., 2009) and school performance (Lieu, 2004; Antia et al., 2009), with possible adverse consequences for the QoL (Roland et al., 2016; Lieu et al., 2020). Therefore, the rehabilitation of children with hearing loss aims to restore hearing ability and optimize their developmental potential to enhance their QoL.
A cochlear implant (CI) is an electronic medical device that provides auditory access to speech sounds that cannot be supplied by sound amplification through conventional hearing aids in individuals with severe and profound hearing loss. Early application of CI facilitates spoken language acquisition (Percy-Smith et al., 2008; Peters et al., 2010; Kronenberger et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2020; Romano et al., 2021; Boerrigter et al., 2022) and promotes participation in mainstream education (Huber et al., 2008, 2014; Huber and Kipman, 2012; Sarant et al., 2015). In addition, CIs seem conducive to the psychosocial prerequisites (e.g., empathy) for social participation (Sarant et al., 2015; Boerrigter et al., 2019, 2021; Tsou et al., 2021). In children, the use of CI can at least partly reverse the effects of hearing loss on the brain (Lee et al., 2020; Lieu et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021).
Several studies reported positive correlations between these CI-specific benefits and the QoL of children and adolescents with hearing loss, such as speech recognition (especially in noisy environments) and spoken language skills (Huber, 2005; Haukedal et al., 2018, 2020; Suneel et al., 2020; Ching et al., 2021), and academic achievement (Van der Straaten et al., 2020).
“Quality of life” refers to different aspects of a person's life, such as economic status, rights, culture, and health (Fayed et al., 2012) with “health-related quality of life” or HRQoL being commonly regarded as a sub-domain of the more global concept of QoL [World Health Organization (WHO), 1948; Davis et al., 2006]. According to the well-validated model of Wilson and Cleary (1995), HRQoL results from biological/physiological variables, symptom status, functional status, and subjective perception of one's state of health (Bakas et al., 2012; Ojelabi et al., 2017).
The present small volume in Frontiers in Psychology, section auditory cognitive neuroscience provides an overview of the state-of-the-art of different pertinent aspects of QoL in young CI recipients. We were particularly interested in high-quality papers that addressed the Research Topics of behavioral and neural correlates and regional differences in QoL, for example, due to societal, cultural, and ethnic differences.
The retrospective study of Warner-Czyz et al. “compared the parent-reported cochlear implant-specific quality of life summary data across 14 published studies spanning 11 countries and nine languages.” Across countries, social and communicative interaction abilities were appraised most positively. The largest differences were found in the communication domain. The authors assumed that limited access to cochlear implantation and rehabilitation, cultural differences in awareness of hearing loss, and differing expectations might explain these differences in parental ratings on the QoL.
The technical progress of cochlear implants is beneficial but also may have limitations. Huber's perspective paper addresses the possible impact of some CI risks listed in the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA)1 of pediatric cochlear implantation on the QOL. From this list, medical and device-related complications, lifelong dependency on the implanted device, and neurosecurity risks (CI technology is an interface technology) may be particularly relevant for young CI users. The author suggested that the mere possibility of device failure, peer victimization due to the device the person will depend on for life, or cybersecurity breaches may already have a negative impact on QoL. However, as the author acknowledges, studies are needed to examine these assumptions.
The qualitative study of Rijke et al. informs about the experience of Dutch adolescents and young adults with CIs and with conventional hearing aids. The participants reported that they could participate in hearing society; however, they reported challenges such as dependency on the technical device (compare Huber) and feeling often misunderstood and sometimes stigmatized when comparing themselves to typical-hearing peers.
The perspective paper of Schweinberger and von Eiff points to the importance of new methods for training vocal emotion recognition, morphing and caricaturing. These methods use “digitally modified stimuli with extended diagnostic information” (Schweinberger and von Eiff). The authors suggested that this training will have a comprehensive positive impact on the QoL of children with CI. From a socio-emotional point of view, recognizing the emotional timbre of the other person's voice is likely to be of great importance for young CI users.
Concluding remarks
This small volume provides some novel insights in QoL of young CI recipients. Improved communication, including vocal emotion recognition, and social participation seem to be important factors for a good quality of life in many cultures. There seem to be cultural differences in how hearing loss in childhood is perceived and experienced and how it affects QoL, at least from the perspective of parents. In addition, it seems to be important to be aware of device-specific (CI) risks in the context of QoL.
However, there are also limitations. Not all regions have access to cochlear implants and rehabilitation that is affordable for all people. This can make it difficult to compare studies addressing QoL of young individuals with CI. Furthermore, two out of four contributions provide information on perspectives. Further studies are needed.
So, the papers in this small volume raise more questions than answers. Studies that provide possible answers to these questions would come from a wide variety of disciplines, including clinical psychology, educational science, audiology, otology-neurotology, neuroscience, computer science, electrical engineering, and sociology.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
References
Anne, S., Lieu, J. E. C., and Cohen, M. S. (2017). Speech and language consequences of unilateral hearing loss: a systematic review. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 157, 572–579. doi: 10.1177/0194599817726326
Antia, S. D., Jones, P. B., Reed, S., and Kreimeyer, K. H. (2009). Academic status and progress of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in general education classrooms. J. Deaf. Stud. Deaf. Educ. 14, 293–311. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enp009
Bakas, T., McLennon, S. M., Carpenter, J. S., Buelow, J. M., Otte, J. L., Hanna, K. M., et al. (2012). Systematic review of health-related quality of life models. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 16, 134. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-134
Blamey, P. J., Sarant, J. Z., Paatsch, L. E., Barry, J. G., Bow, C. P., Wales, R. J., et al. (2001). Relationships among speech perception, production, language, hearing loss, and age in children with impaired hearing. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 44, 264–285. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2001/022)
Boerrigter, M., Vermeulen, A., Marres, H., Mylanus, E., and Langereis, M. (2019). Frequencies of behavioral problems reported by parents and teachers of hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants. Front. Psychol. 10, 1591. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01591
Boerrigter, M., Vermeulen, A., Marres, H., Mylanus, E., and Langereis, M. (2021). Self-concept of children and adolescents with cochlear implants. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 141, 110506. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110506
Boerrigter, M., Vermeulen, A. M., Benard, M. R., van Dijk, J. E., Marres, H. A. M., Mylanus, E. A. M., et al. (2022). Cochlear implants or hearing aids: speech perception, language and executive function outcomes. Ear Hear.
Calmels, M. N., Gallois, Y., Marx, M.-, Deguine, O., Taoui, S., Arnaud, E., et al. (2022). Functional reorganization of the central auditory system in children with single-sided deafness: a protocol using fNIRS. Brain Sci. 12, 423. doi: 10.3390/brainsci12040423
Ching, T. Y. C., Cupples, L., Leigh, G., Hou, S., and Wong, A. (2021). predicting quality of life and behavior and emotion from functional auditory and pragmatic language abilities in 9-year-old deaf and hard-of-hearing children. J. Clin. Med. 10, 5357. doi: 10.3390/jcm10225357
Davis, E., Waters, E., Mackinnon, A., Reddihough, D., Graham, H. K., Mehmet-Radji, O., et al. (2006). Paediatric quality of life instruments: a review of the impact of the conceptual framework on outcomes. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 48, 311–318. doi: 10.1017/S0012162206000673
Fayed, N., de Camargo, O. K., Kerr, E., Rosenbaum, P., Dubey, A., Bostan, C., et al. (2012). Generic patient-reported outcomes in child health research: a review of conceptual content using World Health Organization definitions. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 54, 1085–1095. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2012.04393
Grégoire, A., Deggouj, N., Dricot, L., Decat, M., and Kupers, R. (2022). Brain morphological modifications in congenital and acquired auditory deprivation: a systematic review and coordinate-based meta-analysis. Front. Neurosci. 16, 850245. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2022.850245
Haukedal, C. L., Lyxell, B., and Wie, O. B. (2020). Health-related quality of life with cochlear implants: the children's perspective. Ear Hear. 41, 330–343. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000761
Haukedal, C. L., Von Koss Torkildsen, J., Lyxell, B., and Wie, O. B. (2018). Parents' perception of health-related quality of life in children with cochlear implants: the impact of language skills and hearing. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 61:2084–2098. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-17-0278
Huber, M. (2005). Health-related quality of life of Austrian children and adolescents with cochlear implants. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 69, 1089–1101. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.02.018
Huber, M., Hitzl, W., and Albegger, K. (2008). Education and training of young people who grew up with cochlear implants. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 72, 1393–1403. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2008.06.002
Huber, M., and Kipman, U. (2012). Cognitive skills and academic achievement of deaf children with cochlear implants. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 147, 763–772. doi: 10.1177/0194599812448352
Huber, M., Kipman, U., and Pletzer, B. (2014). Reading instead of reasoning? Predictors of arithmetic skills in children with cochlear implants. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 78, 1147–1152. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.04.038
Kronenberger, W. G., Xu, H., and Pisoni, D. B. (2020). Longitudinal development of executive functioning and spoken language skills in preschool-aged children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 63, 1128–1147. doi: 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00247
Lee, H. J., Smieja, D., Polonenko, M. J., Cushing, S. L., Papsin, B. C., and Gordon, K. A. (2020). Consistent and chronic cochlear implant use partially reverses cortical effects of single sided deafness in children. Sci Rep. 10, 21526. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78371-6
Lieu, J. E. (2004). Speech-language and educational consequences of unilateral hearing loss in children. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 130, 524–530. doi: 10.1001/archotol.130.5.524
Lieu, J. E. C., Kenna, M., Anne, S., and Davidson, L. (2020). Hearing loss in children: a review. JAMA. 324, 2195–2205. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.17647
Manno, F. A. M., Rodríguez-Cruces, R., Kumar, R., Ratnanather, J. T., and Lau, C. (2021). Hearing loss impacts gray and white matter across the lifespan: systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Neuroimage 231, 117826. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.117826
Martínez-Cruz, C. F., Poblano, A., and Conde-Reyes, M. P. (2009). Cognitive performance of school children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Arch. Med. Res. 40, 374–379. doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2009.05.008
Ojelabi, A. O., Graham, Y., Haighton, C., and Ling, J. (2017). A systematic review of the application of Wilson and Cleary health-related quality of life model in chronic diseases. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 11, 241. doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0818-2
Percy-Smith, L., Cayé-Thomasen, P., Gudman, M., Jensen, J. H., and Thomsen, J. (2008). Self-esteem and social well-being of children with cochlear implant compared to normal-hearing children. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 72, 1113–1120. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2008.03.028
Peters, B. R., Wyss, J., and Manrique, M. (2010). Worldwide trends in bilateral cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 120(suppl. 2), S17–S44. doi: 10.1002/lary.20859
Roland, L., Fischer, C., Tran, K., Rachakonda, T., Kallogjeri, D., and Lieu, J. E. C. (2016). Quality of life in children with hearing impairment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol. Head Neck. Surg. 155, 208–219. doi: 10.1177/0194599816640485
Romano, D. R., Kronenberger, W. G., Henning, S. C., Montgomery, C. J., Ditmars, A. M., Johnson, C. A., et al. (2021). Verbal working memory error patterns and speech-language outcomes in youth with cochlear implants. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 64, 4949–4963. doi: 10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00114
Sarant, J. Z., Harris, D. C., and Bennet, L. A. (2015). Academic outcomes for school-aged children with severe-profound hearing loss and early unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants. J. Speech. Lang. Hear. Res. 58, 1017–1032. doi: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-0075
Sharma, S. D., Cushing, S. L., Papsin, B. C., and Gordon, K. A. (2020). Hearing and speech benefits of cochlear implantation in children: a review of the literature. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 133, 109984. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.109984
Suneel, D., Davidson, L. S., and Lieu, J. (2020). Self-reported hearing quality of life measures in pediatric cochlear implant recipients with bilateral input. Cochlear Implants Int. 21, 83–91. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2019.1670486
Theunissen, S. C., Rieffe, C., Netten, A. P., Briaire, J. J., Soede, W., Kouwenberg, M., et al. (2014). Self-esteem in hearing-impaired children:the influence of communication, education, and audiological characteristics. PLoS ONE 9, e94521. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094521
Tsou, Y. T., Li, B., Wiefferink, C. H., Frijns, J. H. M., and Rieffe, C. (2021). The developmental trajectory of empathy and its association with early symptoms of psychopathology in children with and without hearing loss. Res. Child. Adolesc. Psychopathol. 49, 1151–1164. doi: 10.1007/s10802-021-00816-x
Van der Straaten, T. F. K., Rieffe, C., Soede, W., Netten, A. P., Dirks, E., Oudesluys-Murphy, A. M., et al. (2020). Quality of life of children with hearing loss in special and mainstream education: a longitudinal study. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 128, 109701. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109701
Wang, Y., Liu, L., Zhang, Y., Wei, C., Xin, T., He, Q., et al. (2021). The neural processing of vocal emotion after hearing reconstruction in prelingual deaf children: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy brain imaging study. Front. Neurosci. 15, 705741. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.705741
Keywords: quality of life, children and adolescents with hearing loss, cochlear implants, regional differences, controlling factors
Citation: Huber M, Lee H-J, Langereis M and Vermeulen A (2022) Editorial: Quality of life in young cochlear implant recipients: Are there controlling factors and regional differences? Front. Psychol. 13:1109242. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1109242
Received: 27 November 2022; Accepted: 05 December 2022;
Published: 15 December 2022.
Edited and reviewed by: Richard Charles Dowell, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Copyright © 2022 Huber, Lee, Langereis and Vermeulen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Maria Huber, 
bS5odWJlciYjeDAwMDQwO3NhbGsuYXQ=