A framework for understanding the relation between spoken language input and outcomes for children with cochlear implants

Abstract

Spoken language outcomes after cochlear implantation are highly variable. Some variance can be attributed to individual characteristics. Research with typically hearing children suggests that the amount of language directed to children may also play a role. However, several moderating factors may complicate the association between language input and language outcomes in children with cochlear implants. In this article, I present a conceptual framework that posits that the association between total language input directed to children and language outcomes is moderated by factors that influence what is accessible, attended to, and coordinated with the child. The framework also posits that children with cochlear implants exhibit more variability on those moderating factors, which explains why the relation between language input and language outcomes may be more complex even if language input is more important for successful language outcomes in this population. K E Y W O R D S cochlear implants, deaf children, hard-of-hearing children, language inputHow to cite this article: Houston, D. M. (2022). A framework for understanding the relation between spoken language input and outcomes for children with cochlear implants. Child Development Perspectives, 16,[60][61][62][63][64][65][66]

“It doesn’t matter if we’re the most amazing professionals in the world…” A qualitative study of professionals’ perspectives on parent-child interaction assessment with deaf infants

“…Recent PCI research in hearing dyads reports that levels of language exposure and conversational turns between parent and child impact language processing over and above quantity of words ( Romeo et al, 2018 ). Houston (2022) argues that the association between language input and language outcomes for deaf and hard of hearing children are more complex because of four differences: total language input; accessible language input; attended-to language input; and language co-ordinated with cognitive level. Houston recommends that early interventionists enhance parents’ knowledge, self-efficacy, and skill so that each deaf child receives accessible, developmentally appropriate language in their family context.…”

Bidirectional language influence in mother–child interaction and its effects on the communicative development of children with cochlear implants: A longitudinal study

“…These results may have important implications for clinical practice: On the grounds that teaching parents has proven successful in previous research (Kaiser et al, 1998), professionals may advise parents on the techniques to use to most successfully promote language acquisition in children with CIs and to remediate delays. The present study included small samples within groups, did not differentiate between open and closed questions, and did not investigate whether parental input was coordinated with children’s attention (important for successful language acquisition; Houston, 2022) and/or also delivered using nonverbal cues such as gestures or facial expressions. Further research will contribute to establish whether the findings of the present study hold with larger participant samples, more comprehensive measures, and/or different languages.…”

The everyday speech environments of preschoolers with and without cochlear implants

“…There are reasons to believe that the speech-language input directed to children, and caregiver-child interaction, may vary by hearing status, particularly for children with severe to profound hearing loss who receive cochlear implants (CIs) (Houston, 2022). A CI is an auditory prosthesis with an audio processor worn external to the ear and an electrode array inserted into the cochlea that directly stimulates the auditory nerve, partially restoring the sensation of hearing.…”

“…Although children with TH who hear more speech and/or engage in more conversational turns have more mature speech production outcomes in infancy and early childhood (Cychosz, Munson, & Edwards, 2021;Ferjan Ramírez et al, 2019Ruan, 2022;Wang, Williams, Dilley, & Houston, 2020), this relationship may be less predictive for children with CIs. As described in section 1.1, children with CIs could have more difficulty locating caregivers in the environment due to signal degradation and device limitations (Houston, 2022;Wang et al, 2018), making it more difficult to segment speech, separate speech from other sounds, and process words (Vavatzanidis, Mürbe, Friederici, & Hahne, 2018). EVERYDAY SPEECH 12 2 Methods…”