Findings from this investigation suggest that children with hearing loss have increased access to caregiver talk when using an RMS in the home environment. Clinical implications and future directions for research are discussed.

Purpose The impact of home use of a remote microphone system (RMS) on the caregiver production of, and child access to, child-directed speech (CDS) in families with a young child with hearing loss was investigated. Method We drew upon extant data that were collected via Language ENvironment Analysis (LENA) recorders used with 9 families during 2 consecutive weekends (RMS weekend and no-RMS weekend). Audio recordings of primary caregivers and their children with hearing loss obtained while wearing and not wearing an RMS were manually coded to estimate the amount of CDS produced. The proportion of CDS that was likely accessible to children with hearing loss under both conditions was determined. Results Caregivers produced the same amount of CDS when using and when not using the RMS. However, it was concluded that children with hearing loss, on average, could potentially access 12% more CDS if caregivers used an RMS because of their distance from their children when talking to them. Conclusion Given our understanding of typical child language development, findings from this investigation suggest that children with hearing loss could receive auditory, speech, and language benefits from the use of an RMS in the home environment.

Purpose This study examined the impact of home use of remote microphone systems (RMSs) on caregiver communication and child vocalizations in families of children with hearing loss. Method We drew on data from a prior study in which Language ENvironmental Analysis recorders were used with 9 families during 2 consecutive weekends—1 that involved using an RMS and 1 that did not. Audio samples from Language ENvironmental Analysis recorders were (a) manually coded to quantify the frequency of verbal repetitions and alert phrases caregivers utilized in communicating to children with hearing loss and (b) automatically analyzed to quantify children's vocalization rate, duration, complexity, and reciprocity when using and not using an RMS. Results When using an RMS at home, caregivers did not repeat or clarify their statements as often as when not using an RMS while communicating with their children with hearing loss. However, no between-condition differences were observed in children's vocal characteristics. Conclusions Results provide further support for home RMS use for children with hearing loss. Specifically, findings lend empirical support to prior parental reports suggesting that RMS use eases caregiver communication in the home setting. Studies exploring RMS use over a longer duration of time might provide further insight into potential long-term effects on children's vocal production.

No abstract

Effective vocabulary interventions for children with hearing loss, including children who are bilingual, are needed because of persistent vocabulary deficits in this population. Current instructional practices for children with hearing loss who are bilingual vary in the degree to which they incorporate the language the child uses at home. Unfortunately, there is little direct evidence as to whether bilingual or monolingual instructional practices yield greater benefits for these children. Three Spanish-English-speaking children participated in this single case adapted alternating treatments design study that evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of bilingual and monolingual teaching procedures for an expressive vocabulary intervention. Contrary to predictions from a monolingual instruction perspective, no evidence of an inhibitory effect of bilingual instruction on English performance was identified. Participants exhibited gains in Spanish for words in the bilingual condition only. Findings suggest more efficient word learning in the bilingual condition as measured by conceptual vocabulary.