Erratum: Neuropsychological testing in the screening for cochlear implant candidacy (The Laryngoscope (January 2003) 113:1 (57-60))

Laryngoscope

Volumn 113, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 763-766

  Kutz, Walter ^a   Wright, Crystal ^a   Krull, Kevin R ^a   Manolidis, Spiros ^a  

^a TEXAS CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ERRATUM; ERROR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILD PARENT RELATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; MALE; MASS SCREENING; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PATIENT SELECTION; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; VISION;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, BILATERAL; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PARENT-CHILD RELATIONS; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 0037686119     PISSN: 0023852X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200304000-00035     Document Type: Erratum

References (14)

1. 1. Fryauf‐Bertschy H, Tyler RS, Kelsay DM, Ganz BJ. Performance over time of congenitally deaf and postlingually deaf children using multichannel cochlear implants. J Speech Hear Res 1992 ; 35: 913–920.
2. 2. Miyamoto RT, Osberger MJ, Robbins AM, Myres WA, Kessler K. Prelingually deafened children's performance with the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1993 ; 14: 437–445.
3. 3. Quittner AL, Thompson S. Predictors of cochlear implant use in children. Am J Otol 1991 ; 12: 89–94.
4. 4. Osberger MJ, Fisher L. Preoperative predictors of postoperative implant performance in children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000 ; 185: 44–46.
5. 5. Knutson JF, Wald RL, Ehlers SL, Tyler RS. Psychological consequences of pediatric cochlear implant use. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000 ; 185: 109–111.
6. 6. Thomas SE, Kelly SJ, Mattson SN, Riley EP. Comparison of social abilities of children with fetal alcohol syndrome to those children with similar IQ scores and normal controls. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1998 ; 22: 528–533.
7. 7. Carter AS, Volkmar FR, Sparrow SS, et al. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: supplementary norms for individuals with autism. J Autism Dev Disord 1998 ; 28: 287–302.
8. 8. Baumgardener TL, Reiss AL, Frend LS, Abrams MT. Specification of the neurobehavioral phenotype in male with fragile X syndrome. Pediatrics 1995 ; 95: 744–752.
9. 9. Tiber N. A psychological evaluation of cochlear implants in children. Ear Hear 1985 ; 6: 48S–51S.
10. 10. Ling D, Nienhuys TG. The deaf child: habilitation with and without a cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1983 ; 92: 593–598.
11. 11. Stark RE. Speech‐language habilitation of hearing‐impaired children: basis for assessment and training. Am J Otol 1991 ; 12: 62–66.
12. 12. Pisoni DB. Congnitive factors and cochlear implants: some thoughts on perception, learning, and memory in speech perception. Ear Hear 2000 ; 21: 70–78.
13. 13. Dauman R, Debruge E, Carbonniere B, Lautissier‐Berger S, Bouye J, Soriano V. Development of capacities of communication and socialization in young deaf children: utility of a common assessment protocol for implanted or hearing aid equipped children. Acta Otolaryngol 1996 ; 116: 234–239.
14. 14. Knutson JF, Boyd RC, Goldman M, Sullivan PM. Psychological characteristics of child cochlear implant candidates and children with hearing impairments. Ear Hear 1997 ; 18: 355–363.