The Impact of Audition on the Development of Visual Attention

1994 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 347-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra L. Quittner ◽  
Linda B. Smith ◽  
Mary Joe Osberger ◽  
Teresa V. Mitchell ◽  
Donald B. Katz
Keyword(s):  
Visual Attention ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Longitudinal Design ◽  
Visual Selective Attention ◽  
Visual Signals ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
History Of ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Better Than

Interactions between audition and vision were investigated in two experiments In the first experiment, school-age hearing children, deaf children with cochlear implants, and deaf children without implants participated in a task in which they were to respond to some visual signals and not others This task did not involve sound at all Deaf children without implants performed much more poorly than hearing children Deaf children with cochlear implants performed considerably better than deaf children without implants The second experiment employed a longitudinal design and showed that the rate of development in visual selective attention was faster for deaf children with cochlear implants than deaf children without implants Moreover, the gains were rapid—occurring within 2 years post-implant surgery The results suggest that a history of experience with sounds matters in the development of visual attention The results are discussed in terms of multimodal developmental processes

scholarly journals Talker Discrimination by Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Preliminary Results

2002 ◽  
Vol 111 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 113-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miranda Cleary ◽  
David B. Pisoni
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Sentence Condition ◽  
Language Outcome ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Proportion Correct ◽  
Linguistic Content

Forty-four school-age children who had used a multichannel cochlear implant (CI) for at least 4 years were tested to assess their ability to discriminate differences between recorded pairs of female voices uttering sentences. Children were asked to respond “same voice” or “different voice” on each trial. Two conditions were examined. In one condition, the linguistic content of the sentence was always held constant and only the talker's voice varied from trial to trial. In another condition, the linguistic content of the utterance also varied so that to correctly respond “same voice,” the child needed to recognize that Two different sentences were spoken by the same talker. Data from normal-hearing children were used to establish that these tasks were well within the capabilities of children without hearing impairment. For the children with CIs, in the “fixed sentence condition” the mean proportion correct was 68%, which, although significantly different from the 50% score expected by chance, suggests that the children with CIs found this discrimination task rather difficult. In the “varied sentence condition,” however, the mean proportion correct was only 57%, indicating that the children were essentially unable to recognize an unfamiliar talker's voice when the linguistic content of the paired sentences differed. Correlations with other speech and language outcome measures are also reported.

scholarly journals Well-being, Opportunity, and Selecting for Disability

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Schroeder
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Alternative Analysis ◽  
Opportunity Sets ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

In this paper I look at the much-discussed case of disabled parents seeking to conceive (or “selecting for”) disabled children.  I argue that the permissibility of selecting for disability does not depend on the precise impact the disability will have on the child’s wellbeing.  I then turn to an alternative analysis, which argues that the permissibility of selecting for disability depends on the impact that disability will have on the child’s future opportunities.  Nearly all bioethicists who have approached the issue in this way have argued that disabilities like deafness unacceptably constrain a child’s opportunities.  I argue, however, that this conclusion is premature for several reasons.  Most importantly, we don’t have a good way of comparing opportunity sets.  Thus, we can’t conclude that deaf children will grow up to have a constrained set of opportunities relative to hearing children.  I conclude by suggesting that bioethicists and philosophers of disability need to spend more time thinking carefully about the relationship between disability and opportunity.  

Performances of Deaf and Normally-Hearing Children on the Bender-Gestalt and the Archimedes Spiral Tests

1967 ◽  
Vol 24 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1059-1066 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne G. Gilbert ◽  
Raymond F. Levee
Keyword(s):  
Deaf Children ◽  
Archimedes Spiral ◽  
Negative Aftereffect ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Better Than

50 hearing and 50 deaf children of comparable intelligence were given the Archimedes spiral aftereffect and the Bender-Gestalt tests. Controls performed significantly better than the deaf group on both tests. Children who made fewer errors on the Bender tended to perceive the negative spiral aftereffect more often, this tendency being more marked in the deaf group. Older hearing children performed better on both tests and brighter hearing children perceived the negative aftereffect more often, but this tendency was not evident with deaf children. Results suggest that the two tests may be measuring different cerebral functioning but the use of both should prove a valuable aid in the detection of visual-perceptual problems in deaf children.

WISC and Nebraska Performance of Deaf and Hearing Children

1972 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 783-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane J. Willis ◽  
Logan Wright ◽  
John Wolfe
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Functioning ◽  
Day School ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Residential School ◽  
Perceptual Skills ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Better Than

The purpose of this study was threefold: (1) to evaluate the visual-perceptual skills of deaf and of hearing children; (2) to compare the performances of the two groups on two tests frequently used to assess intellectual functioning; and (3) to compare the performance of deaf children in a day school with those in a residential school. Results indicate deaf children are not inferior to hearing children on visual-perceptual tasks and day-school deaf children performed better than residential deaf children. Differences between the deaf and hearing on the two tests were significant on 3 of the 10 subtests. In addition, normative scores on at least one subtest of the Nebraska appear too high, and correction may be in order. Correlations between the two tests, for both deaf and hearing children, were low.

scholarly journals Visual attention, behavioral inhibition and speech/language outcomes in deaf children with cochlear implants

2004 ◽  
Vol 1273 ◽  
pp. 332-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Horn ◽  
Rebecca A.O. Davis ◽  
David B. Pisoni ◽  
Richard T. Miyamoto
Keyword(s):  
Visual Attention ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Behavioral Inhibition ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Outcomes

scholarly journals Conhecimento das famílias de crianças usuárias de implante coclear sobre o desenvolvimento de linguagem e condições do dispositivo

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Natália Caroline Rovere ◽  
Arthur Menino Castilho ◽  
Maria Cecília Marconi Pinheiro Lima
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Public Hospital ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Language Therapy ◽  
Telephone Contact ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Family ◽  
Better Than

RESUMOObjetivo: Conhecer como as famílias de crianças surdas usuárias de Implante Coclear percebem o desenvolvimento de linguagem da criança e relacionar esses dados com o tempo de uso diário e a quebra do dispositivo. Métodos: Trata-se de pesquisa de caráter exploratório com abordagem quantitativa. Realizou-se um levantamento do número de crianças implantadas em um serviço de saúde auditiva de um hospital escola, entre 2013 e 2015 e para aqueles que aceitaram participar da pesquisa, aplicou-se entrevista e a Escala de Aquisições Iniciais de Linguagem (ELM) com um dos membros da família, sendo esta áudio-gravada, via contato telefônico. Resultados: Das 66 crianças implantadas neste período, 52 participaram da pesquisa, sendo que destas 51 utilizavam o dispositivo. Verificou-se que a maioria (90,4%) frequentava terapia fonoaudiológica e as famílias relataram que estimulam o desenvolvimento da linguagem das crianças em casa. Aquelas classificadas com desenvolvimento de linguagem típico receberam o implante coclear precocemente, utilizavam o implante coclear o dia todo e nunca tiveram o equipamento quebrado. Quanto à Escala ELM, foi encontrado que existem mais casos de desenvolvimento típico para linguagem receptiva do que para a expressiva. Conclusão: Houve relação entre o uso do dispositivo e o desenvolvimento típico e a quebra do equipamento com desenvolvimento atípico de linguagem. Os familiares referiram que a compreensão de linguagem encontra-se mais adequada do que a produção da fala. Descritores: Implante coclear; Surdez; Perda auditiva; Linguagem; Desenvolvimento infantil ABSTRACT Objective: To know as the families of deaf children with cochlear implants (CI) perceive their language development and the to relate this data with the time of daily use and problems in the device. Methods: The research was observational, exploratory, with quantitative approach. A survey of the number of patients implanted in a Hearing Health Service of a public hospital was done, between 2013 and 2015 and it was applied an interview and the Early language Milestone Scale with one of the family members, audio-recorded, through telephone contact. Results: Out of the 66 implanted children, 52 families participated in the research and 51 used the device. It was verified that most of the children (90.04%) were in speech and language therapy and the families stimulated language development at home. The children with typical language development got the IC early in life, used the device all day and the implant never broke. In the ELM scale, it was found that there are more cases of typical development for receptive language than for expressive. Conclusion: There was a relationship between the use of the device and typical language development and the problems in the device with atypical language development. The families see that the children show receptive language development better than the expressive language.Key words: Cochlear Implantation; Deafness; Hearing Loss; Language; Child Development

Lessons Learned: How Studying Cochlear Implantation Reveals the Context in Which d/Deaf Identities Are Formed

2019 ◽  
pp. 96-119
Author(s):  
Laura Mauldin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Parental Decision Making ◽  
Deaf Identity ◽  
History Of ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Context Shapes

With the exponential increase in the use of cochlear implants, much has been written about how cochlear implants may have changed deaf identities. Recent research documents a trend toward a more hearing-oriented identity with potential for positive psychological well-being. In this chapter, a hearing sociologist and ethnographic researcher highlights how the clinical context shapes both parental decision making about obtaining cochlear implants for their deaf children and the far-reaching influence that hearing-oriented systems have on this decision-making process for parents, deaf individuals, and deaf communities. The author describes the nature of these hearing-oriented systems and highlights issues related to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status for cochlear-implanted children. The potential implications for these children are considered. There is a need for research that broadly examines the question of whether and how cochlear implants change the long history of narratives of finding one’s Deaf identity.

Auditory, Visual, and Auditory-Visual Recognition of Consonants by Children with Normal and Impaired Hearing

1972 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 413-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman P. Erber
Keyword(s):  
Visual Recognition ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Acoustic Information ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
Visual Reception ◽  
Impaired Children ◽  
Better Than

The consonants /b, d, g, k, m, n, p, t/ were presented to normal-hearing, severely hearing-impaired, and profoundly deaf children through auditory, visual, and combined auditory-visual modalities. Through lipreading alone, all three groups were able to discriminate between the places of articulation (bilabial, alveolar, velar) but not within each place category. When they received acoustic information only, normal-hearing children recognized the consonants nearly perfectly, and severely hearing-impaired children distinguished accurately between voiceless plosives, voiced plosives, and nasal consonants. However, the scores of the profoundly deaf group were low, and they perceived even voicing and nasality cues unreliably. Although both the normal-hearing and the severely hearing-impaired groups achieved nearly perfect recognition scores through simultaneous auditory-visual reception, the performance of the profoundly deaf children was only slightly better than that which they demonstrated through lipreading alone.

Changing Expectations for Children with Cochlear Implants

2002 ◽  
Vol 111 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 138-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Sachar Moog
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Deaf Education ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
School Program ◽  
Reading Tests ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Education School ◽  
Hearing Children ◽  
The Average Range

Seventeen students with cochlear implants who were between 5 and 11 years of age and attended the Moog Center for Deaf Education school program were tested just before exiting the program. The Moog program is an intensive oral program that provides very focused instruction in spoken language and reading. Children leave the program when they are ready for a mainstream setting or when they are 11 years of age, whichever comes first. All of the children demonstrated open-set speech perception ranging from 36% to 100%. On a test of speech intelligibility, all students scored 90% or better. On language and reading tests, compared with the performance of normal-hearing children their age, more than 65% scored within the average range for language and more than 70% scored within the average range for reading. These data demonstrate what is possible for deaf children who benefit from a combination of a cochlear implant and a highly focused oral education program.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document