Expressive Spoken Language Development in Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants Who are Beginning Formal Education

Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) children need to master at least one language (spoken or signed) to reach their full potential. Providing access to a natural sign language supports this goal. Despite evidence that natural sign languages are beneficial to DHH children, many researchers and practitioners advise families to focus exclusively on spoken language. We critique the Pediatrics article ‘Early Sign Language Exposure and Cochlear Implants’ (Geers et al., 2017) as an example of research that makes unsupported claims against the inclusion of natural sign languages. We refute claims that (1) there are harmful effects of sign language and (2) that listening and spoken language are necessary for optimal development of deaf children. While practical challenges remain (and are discussed) for providing a sign language-rich environment, research evidence suggests that such challenges are worth tackling in light of natural sign languages providing a host of benefits for DHH children – especially in the prevention and reduction of language deprivation.

Download Full-text

Theory-of-Mind Development in Young Deaf Children With Early Hearing Provisions

Psychological Science ◽

10.1177/0956797620960389 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 095679762096038

Author(s):

Chi-Lin Yu ◽

Christopher M. Stanzione ◽

Henry M. Wellman ◽

Amy R. Lederberg

Keyword(s):

Theory Of Mind ◽

Cochlear Implants ◽

Hearing Aids ◽

Hard Of Hearing ◽

Spoken Language ◽

Deaf Children ◽

Older Children ◽

Language Abilities ◽

Hearing Parents ◽

Developmental Relationship

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children born to hearing parents have profound theory-of-mind (ToM) delays, yet little is known about how providing hearing assistance early in life, through cochlear implants and hearing aids, influences their ToM development. We thus addressed (a) whether young DHH children with early hearing provision developed ToM differently than older children did in previous research and (b) what ToM understandings characterize this understudied population. Findings from 84 three- to six-year-old DHH children primarily acquiring spoken language demonstrated that accumulated hearing experience influenced their ToM, as measured by a five-step ToM scale. Moreover, language abilities mediated this developmental relationship: Children with more advanced language abilities, because of more time using cochlear implants and hearing aids, had better ToM growth. These findings demonstrate the crucial relationships among hearing, language, and ToM for DHH children acquiring spoken language, thereby addressing theoretical and practical questions about ToM development.

Download Full-text

Cochlear implants before 9 months of age led to more natural spoken language development without increased surgical risks

Acta Paediatrica ◽

10.1111/apa.14954 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 109 (2) ◽

pp. 332-341 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Eva Karltorp ◽

Martin Eklöf ◽

Elisabet Östlund ◽

Filip Asp ◽

Bo Tideholm ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Language Development ◽

Cochlear Implants ◽

Spoken Language

Download Full-text

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

Saúde (Santa Maria) ◽

10.5902/2236583447230 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Developmental, Cognitive, and Neurocognitive Perspectives on Language Development in Children Who Use Cochlear Implants

The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Learning and Cognition ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190054045.013.12 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 32-45

Author(s):

Pasquale Rinaldi ◽

Francesco Pavani ◽

Maria Cristina Caselli

Keyword(s):

Language Development ◽

Cochlear Implants ◽

Family Environment ◽

Hearing Aids ◽

Deaf Children ◽

Screening Programs ◽

Neuroscience Research ◽

Hearing Recovery ◽

Newborn Hearing ◽

Specific Factors

Newborn hearing screening programs and early diagnosis allow deaf children to receive hearing aids and/or cochlear implants very early in life. However, even within these early intervention scenarios, deaf children remain at risk of delays in spoken language acquisition despite what is expected based on their hearing recovery scores. The first part of this chapter offers an overview of recent studies on the role of specific factors (i.e., age at diagnosis, age at cochlear implant activation, family environment, and exposure to sign language) in affecting communicative and linguistic development. The second part examines to what extent current cognitive neuroscience research is contributing to refinement of the concept of critical or sensitive periods for the development of the acoustic system and language in deaf children. Clinical and educational implications for promoting language development in deaf children are discussed.

Download Full-text

Language Development and Deaf Children

Educating Deaf Students ◽

10.1093/oso/9780195310702.003.0010 ◽

2006 ◽

Author(s):

Marc Marschark ◽

Harry G. Lang ◽

John A. Albertini

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Academic Success ◽

Language Development ◽

Sign Language ◽

The United States ◽

Spoken Language ◽

Deaf Children ◽

University Center ◽

Language Modality ◽

Hearing Children

To understand the complex relations between language and learning, we have to look at both how children learn language and what it is that they learn that allows them to communicate with others. To accomplish this, we need to distinguish between apparent differences in language that are related to the modality of communication and actual differences in language fluencies observed among deaf children. It also will help to examine some relevant differences between deaf children and hearing children. We have already pointed out that the distinction between spoken language and sign language, while a theoretically important one for researchers, is an oversimplification for most practical purposes. It is rare that deaf children are exposed only to spoken language or sign language, even if that is the intention of their parents or teachers. According to 1999 data, approximately 55 percent of deaf children in the United States are formally educated in programs that report either using sign language exclusively (just over 5 percent) or signed and spoken language together (just over 49 percent) (Gallaudet University, Center for Applied Demographic Statistics). Because almost half of all deaf children in the United States are missed in such surveys, however, these numbers only should be taken as approximate. Comparisons of the language abilities of deaf children who primarily use sign language with those who primarily use spoken language represent one of the most popular and potentially informative areas in research relating to language development and academic success. Unfortunately, this area is also one of the most complex. Educational programs emphasizing spoken or sign language often have different educational philosophies and curricula as well as different communication philosophies. Programs may only admit children with particular histories of early intervention, and parents will be drawn to different programs for a variety of reasons. Differences observed between children from any two programs thus might be the result of a number of variables rather than, or in addition to, language modality per se. Even when deaf children are educated in spoken language environments, they often develop systems of gestural communication with their parents (Greenberg et al., 1984).

Download Full-text