A Comparison of Language Achievement in Children With Cochlear Implants and Children Using Hearing Aids

Abstract

English language achievement of 29 prelingually deaf children with 3 or more years of cochlear implant (CI) experience was compared to the achievement levels of prelingually deaf children who did not have such CI experience. Language achievement was measured by the Rhode Island Test of Language Structure (RITLS), a measure of signed and spoken sentence comprehension, and the Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn), a measure of expressive (signed and spoken) English grammar. When the CI users were compared with their deaf age mates who contributed to the norms of the RITLS, it was found that CI users achieved significantly better scores. Likewise, we found that CI users performed better than 29 deaf children who used hearing aids (HAs) with respect to English grammar achievement as indexed by the IPSyn. Additionally, we found that chronological age highly correlated with IPSyn levels only among the non-CI users, whereas length of CI experience was significantly correlated with IPSyn scores for CI users. Finally, clear differences between those with and without CI experience were found by 2 years of post-implant experience. These data provide evidence that children who receive CIs benefit in the form of improved English language comprehension and production.Keywords cochlear implants; language development; prelingually deaf; children Multichannel Cochlear Implants (CIs) have been available to profoundly deaf children for over a decade. One of the primary benefits intended for children receiving CIs is an improvement in communication skills. More specifically, the selection of a CI for a child implies an obvious desire by the parents to have the child participate within, and use the language of, the hearing community. Therefore, one of the expected benefits in communication derived from CIs in an English speaking community is the acquisition of spoken English. These expected benefits have been questioned recently by some (Tyler, 1993). Lane (1992) and Crouch (1997) have voiced strong opposition to the use of CIs in congenitally deaf children. Lane (1992) stated It is highly unlikely that an impoverished auditory signal such as the implant provides will yield the same benefits for later language acquisition that normal hearing does; indeed, the coding carried out by the speech processor of the implant may work against the usefulness of the auditory input for language development, since the human nervous system did not evolve to acquire language from cochlear prostheses (pp. 224-225). NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptCrouch (1997) noted that it remains to be shown that children receiving CIs obtain sufficient linguistic benefit from these devices to permit them to be fully participating members of the hearing community.Similar skepticism is found concerning the effectiveness of CIs on speech perception and speech production (Tyler, Davis, & Lansing, 1987). However, several programs of research have demonstrated that children receiving CIs show improvements in speech perce...

Exploring the Language and Literacy Outcomes of Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users

“…In concert, research shows that the speech production skills of deaf children also improve after implantation (Allen, Nikolopoulos, & O'Donoghue, 1998;Brown & McDowall, 1999;Ertmer & Mellon 2001). Finally, several studies have shown that spoken language development is also benefited by experience with a cochlear implant (Blamey, et al, 2001;Bollard, Chute, Popp, & Parisier, 1999;Connor, Hieber, Arts, & Zwolan, 2000;Miyamoto, Kirk, Svirsky, & Sehgal, 1999;Moeller, 2000;Tomblin, Spencer, Flock, Tyler, & Gantz, 1999).…”

“…In concert, research shows that the speech production skills of deaf children also improve after implantation (Allen, Nikolopoulos, & O'Donoghue, 1998;Brown & McDowall, 1999;Ertmer & Mellon 2001). Finally, several studies have shown that spoken language development is also benefited by experience with a cochlear implant (Blamey, et al, 2001;Bollard, Chute, Popp, & Parisier, 1999;Connor, Hieber, Arts, & Zwolan, 2000;Miyamoto, Kirk, Svirsky, & Sehgal, 1999;Moeller, 2000;Tomblin, Spencer, Flock, Tyler, & Gantz, 1999).When parents are faced with the "cochlear implant decision" for their children, a driving factor in their decision is their "frustration with the child's communication skills" (Kluwin & Stewart, 2000). Improved speech perception and production skills lay the foundation for closing this communication gap; thus it is speech perception and production that are typically hailed as principal benefits of the device.…”

An institution based cross-sectional study on medical rehabilitation of deaf and dumb children in Ahmedabad

“…In present study 7.44 children were having cochlear implant while in study conducted by Hintermair et al 7 9.1% children had cochlear implant. 92.56% children were using hearing aid in present study.…”

Feasibility of a Recasting and Auditory Bombardment Treatment With Young Cochlear Implant Users

“…Of these children, only 43% demonstrated average language skills for their chronological age, leaving 57% with language delays. Others have reported that children with cochlear implants frequently present with delays in grammatical morphology, regardless of age of implantation (Nikolopoulos, Dyar, Archbold, & O'Donoghue, 2004;Rudmin, 1983;Tomblin, Spencer, Flock, Tyler, & Gantz, 1999). Such delays often persist longer than deficits in other language domains.…”