Abstract:Aim: We investigated how accurate observations of canonical babbling (CB) were and explored predictive babbling measures in children with and without medical diagnoses of conditions that can lead to speech and language problems.Methods: From 2012 to 2014 this Stockholm-based study recruited 38 children aged nine months to 21 months with medical diagnoses and 30 children aged 10 months without diagnoses and included 21 previously studied 12-month-old children without medical diagnoses. CB and consonant sound pr… Show more
“…The core problem that causes late babbling could generalize to other aspects of language and literacy development. Thus, the absence of canonical babbling and persistence of precanonical vocalizations as the predominant vocalization pattern beyond 10-12 months of age may indicate atypical vocal development and precede later speech and language deviations [25,39]. Indeed, Oller et al reported that infants who did not produce canonical syllables at 10-12 months also had a reduced expressive vocabulary at 18, 24, and 30 months of age [24].…”
Purpose of Review To summarize findings about the emergence and characteristics of canonical babbling in children with late detected developmental disorders (LDDDs), such as autism spectrum disorder, Rett syndrome, and fragile X syndrome. In particular, we ask whether infants' vocal development in the first year of life contains any markers that may contribute to earlier detection of these disorders. Recent Findings Only a handful studies have investigated canonical babbling in infants with LDDDs. With divergent research paradigms and definitions applied, findings on the onset and characteristics of canonical babbling are inconsistent and difficult to compare. Infants with LDDDs showed reduced likelihood to produce canonical babbling vocalizations. If achieved, this milestone was more likely to be reached beyond the critical time window of 5-10 months. Summary Canonical babbling appears promising as a potential marker for early detection of infants at risk for developmental disorders. In-depth studies on babbling characteristics in LDDDs are warranted.
“…The core problem that causes late babbling could generalize to other aspects of language and literacy development. Thus, the absence of canonical babbling and persistence of precanonical vocalizations as the predominant vocalization pattern beyond 10-12 months of age may indicate atypical vocal development and precede later speech and language deviations [25,39]. Indeed, Oller et al reported that infants who did not produce canonical syllables at 10-12 months also had a reduced expressive vocabulary at 18, 24, and 30 months of age [24].…”
Purpose of Review To summarize findings about the emergence and characteristics of canonical babbling in children with late detected developmental disorders (LDDDs), such as autism spectrum disorder, Rett syndrome, and fragile X syndrome. In particular, we ask whether infants' vocal development in the first year of life contains any markers that may contribute to earlier detection of these disorders. Recent Findings Only a handful studies have investigated canonical babbling in infants with LDDDs. With divergent research paradigms and definitions applied, findings on the onset and characteristics of canonical babbling are inconsistent and difficult to compare. Infants with LDDDs showed reduced likelihood to produce canonical babbling vocalizations. If achieved, this milestone was more likely to be reached beyond the critical time window of 5-10 months. Summary Canonical babbling appears promising as a potential marker for early detection of infants at risk for developmental disorders. In-depth studies on babbling characteristics in LDDDs are warranted.
“…This observational study by Lohmander et al. showed that a lack of canonical babbling in children between nine and 21 months can indicate future speech and language problems.…”
Section: Lack Of Babbling May Indicate Future Speech Problemsmentioning
“…Previously validated variables (i.e. occurrence of CB, oral stops, anterior placement and specifically dental/alveolar placement, and total number of different consonants) were used to evaluate babbling by standardised observation [29]. [30].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The observation method was used for assessment of babbling [29]. The parent was told to play and communicate with the child Parents received instructions to play and talk, as they would do at home during 30-40 min.…”
Objective: To investigate early auditory prerequisites in relation to the use of canonical babbling (CB) and early consonant production in a heterogeneous group of children with hearing impairment (HI) and in comparison to controls with normal hearing (NH). Methods: Five children with unilateral or bilateral HI who used hearing aids (HA) (0;9-1;7 years) and six children with cochlear implants (CI) (0;10-2;0 years) were compared to data from 22 children with NH (0;10-1;6 years). Hearing age, type of HI and daily use of hearing technology (hours) was investigated in relation to CB ratio and consonant production. Analysis of babbling from video recordings during verbal interaction between a parent and child was independently performed by two observers. Intra-and inter-agreement were calculated. Results: Children with HI used less CB compared to children with NH. Less CB utterances and occurrences of dental/alveolar stops were found in children with HA who had a hearing age of 5 months and who used their hearing technology 5 h per day. The children with CI reached an expected CB ratio and consonant production after 8.5 months with daily fulltime use of CI. Conclusions: Even a mild hearing loss in early childhood may affect and delay the onset of important linguistic milestones like canonical babbling and consonant production. It was indicated that children with CI or HA might receive different attention and intervention services. Longer hearing age and fulltime use of hearing technology may influence positively on CB ratio and consonant production in children with HI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
