Language evolution in children with cochlear implants

Ouellet, Christine; Normand, Marie‐Thérèse Le; Cohen, Henrí

doi:10.1016/s0278-2626(01)80073-7

Cited by 23 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results revealed that MLU of CI children lags behind that of NH children up to age 6, but CI children caught up by age 7. This is in accordance with for instance Szagun [4], Schauwers [25], Ouellet, Le Normand and Cohen [26], Szagun [27], Nittrouer, Caldwell-Tarr, Sansom, Twersky and Lowensthein [28] and Nittrouer, Sansom, Low, Rice and Caldwell-Tarr [29], who all found lower MLU in CI children as compared to NH children. However, our results show that CI children have age-appropriate MLU scores by age 7.…”

Section: Syntagmatic Developmentsupporting

confidence: 90%

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic development of cochlear implanted children in comparison with normally hearing peers up to age 7

Faes

Gillis

2015

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Syntagmatic Developmentsupporting

confidence: 90%

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic development of cochlear implanted children in comparison with normally hearing peers up to age 7

Faes

Gillis

2015

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Yet, although these and further data Kirk et al, 2002;Ouellet, Le Normand, & Cohen, 2001;Robbins, Osberger, Miyamoto, & Kessler, 1995) suggest that the CI device appears to significantly facilitate language development in children who use it, the device alone does not account for the variability in growth noted across pediatric CI users. In fact, many investigators (Connor et al, 2000;Geers, 2002;Geers, Brenner, & Davidson, 2003;Geers et al, 2002;Hodges, Ash, Balkany, & Schloffman, 1999;Osberger, Zimmerman-Phillips, & Koch, 2002;Tobey, Geers, Brenner, Altuna, & Gabbert, 2003;Tobey et al, 2000) have documented a number of additional factors (e.g., length of CI experience, amount of rehabilitation, device technology, educational setting) that account for the variability in pediatric CI users' performance across assorted speech and language tasks.…”

Section: Nih-pa Author Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 79%

The Effect of Age at Cochlear Implant Initial Stimulation on Expressive Language Growth in Infants and Toddlers

Tomblin

Barker

Spencer

et al. 2005

J Speech Lang Hear Res

230

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the growth of expressive language skills in children who received cochlear implants (CIs) in infancy. Repeated language measures were gathered from 29 children who received CIs between 10 and 40 months of age. Both cross-sectional and growth curve analyses were used to assess the relationship between expressive language outcomes and CI experience. A beneficial effect of earlier implantation on expressive language growth was found. Growth curve analysis showed that growth was more rapid in children implanted as infants than those implanted as toddlers. Age at initial stimulation accounted for 14.6% of the variance of the individual differences in expressive language growth rates.Keywords cochlear implants; infants; language growth; yearly hearing detection and intervention; growth curve analysis Infants born with normal hearing thresholds possess a number of auditory skills crucial to fostering language growth; many of these proficiencies appear to be present as early as birth or beforehand (DeCasper & Fifer, 1980;DeCasper, Lecanuet, Busnel, & Granier-Deferre, 1994;Kuhl & Miller, 1982;Mehler et al., 1988;Moon, Panneton-Cooper, & Fifer, 1993). Neonates with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), however, do not have this benefit of early spoken language exposure. As a result, children with severe to profound SNHL who are born to hearing parents often demonstrate great lags in spoken language development due to limited linguistic input (Brasel & Quigley, 1977;Carney & Moeller, 1998; Lederberg & Spencer, 2001;Mayne, Yoshinaga-Itano, & Sedey, 2000a, 2000b PippSiegel, Sedey, VanLeeuwen, & Yoshinaga-Itano, 2003;Spencer & Meadow-Orlans, 1996). However, nearly 20 years ago, pediatric cochlear implantation emerged as a surgical option that could provide acoustic information to the auditory system by means of direct electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. Despite the fact that the typical cochlear implant (CI) device provides frequency and temporal resolution information that is considerably different from that of acoustic hearing, the auditory information provided by the CI appears to improve the rate of spoken language development of children with severe to profound SNHL who are born to hearing parents (Blamey & Sarant, 2000;Geers & Moog, 1994;Geers, Nicholas, & Sedey, 2003;Svirsky, Robbins, Kirk, Pisoni, & Miyamoto, 2000;Tomblin, Spencer, Flock, Tyler, & Gantz, 1999). Indeed, studies have shown that the rate of language development in school-age children with CIs typically approaches that of children with normal hearing. Svirsky and colleagues (Svirsky, 2003;Svirsky et al., 2000) have NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscriptshown average postimplant-growth rates that match those of children with normal hearing, whereas others have reported rates that ranged from 45% to 67% of normal growth rates (Blamey, 2001;Connor, Hieber, Arts, & Zwolan, 2000). Yet, although these and further data Kirk et al., 2002;Ouellet, Le Normand, & Cohen, 2001;Robbins, Os...

show abstract

“…Studies have been carried out on implanted subjects to evaluate benefits for patients in terms of perception and intelligibility (Miyamoto, Kirk, Svirsky & Sehgal, 1999,), and to evaluate the influence of communication mode and duration of implant use on perception and intelligibility (O'Donoghue, 1999;Geers et al 2000). Other studies consider lexical progress (Ouellet, Le Normand & Cohen, 2001) or syntactic progress (Vieu et al 1998). No research combining syntax and semantics across two languages has been carried out with implanted subjects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deaf Languages: Does the Hypothesis Still Apply?

Vincent-Durroux¹

2009

corela

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language evolution in children with cochlear implants

Cited by 23 publications

References 4 publications

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic development of cochlear implanted children in comparison with normally hearing peers up to age 7

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic development of cochlear implanted children in comparison with normally hearing peers up to age 7

The Effect of Age at Cochlear Implant Initial Stimulation on Expressive Language Growth in Infants and Toddlers

Deaf Languages: Does the Hypothesis Still Apply?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About