Unimodal versus bimodal auditory stimulation in inner ear malformations: Cognitive, language, and motor performance

PURPOSE: New perspectives on rehabilitation options for inner ear malformations have still been studied in the literature. This study investigated the cognitive, language, and motor skills of auditory brainstem implant (ABI) users in unimodal and bimodal groups. METHODS: The motor competency of the participants was assessed with Bruininks–Oseretsky Motor Proficiency Test‐2 Short Form (BOT2 SF). Language performance was evaluated by the test of Early Language Development‐3 and Speech Intelligibility Rating. Word identification, sentence recognition tests, and Categories of Auditory Performance were used to assess auditory perception skills. To examine the cognitive performance, Cancellation Test and Gesell Copy Form were administered. All the tests were conducted in a quiet environment without any distractions. RESULTS: The participants were divided into two groups: (1) 17 children in the unimodal group and (2) 11 children in the bimodal (who used a cochlear implant on one side and ABI on the other side) group. There were significant correlations between the chronological age of participants and BOT2 SF total score, cancellation tests, auditory perception tests, and language performance. Similarly, there were significant correlations between the duration of ABI use and auditory perception tests, language performance, cancellation test, and some BOT2 SF subtests (r = −0.47 to −0.60, p < .001). There was no significant difference between the unimodal and bimodal groups in any task (p > .05). However, there were moderate‐to‐strong correlations among the auditory perception tests, cancellation test, language test, and BOT2 SF total score and subtests (r = 0.40 to 0.55, p < .05). CONCLUSION: Although there were no significant differences between bimodal and unimodal groups, a holistic approach, which indicates that hearing and balance issues can have broader impacts on a person's physical, emotional, social, and psychological aspects, should be used in the assessment process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.