Author's Response: Deaf Children, Cochlear Implants, and Language Acquisition

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 136 (5) ◽  
pp. e1489-e1489
Author(s):  
J. D. Lantos
2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 679-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Nittrouer ◽  
Amanda Caldwell-Tarr ◽  
Emily Sansom ◽  
Jill Twersky ◽  
Joanna H. Lowenstein

Purpose Cochlear implants (CIs) can facilitate the acquisition of spoken language for deaf children, but challenges remain. Language skills dependent on phonological sensitivity are most at risk for these children, so having an effective way to diagnose problems at this level would be of value for school speech-language pathologists. The goal of this study was to assess whether a nonword repetition (NWR) task could serve that purpose. Method Participants were 104 second graders: 49 with normal hearing (NH) and 55 with CIs. In addition to NWR, children were tested on 10 measures involving phonological awareness and processing, serial recall of words, vocabulary, reading, and grammar. Results Children with CIs performed more poorly than children with NH on NWR, and sensitivity to phonological structure alone explained that performance for children in both groups. For children with CIs, 2 audiological factors positively influenced outcomes on NWR: being identified with hearing loss at a younger age and having experience with wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear at the time of receiving a 1st CI. NWR scores were better able to rule out than to rule in such language deficits. Conclusions Well-designed NWR tasks could have clinical utility in assessments of language acquisition for school-age children with CIs.


Author(s):  
William G. Kronenberger ◽  
David B. Pisoni

Prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants (CIs) have about 2 to 5 times more risk for delays in specific domains of executive functioning (EF) than normal-hearing (NH) children, with about 25% to 40% of children with CIs showing delays in specific EF subdomains. This chapter reviews the rationale and evidence for two theoretical approaches to explaining this elevated risk for EF delay: language-focused approaches and biopsychosocial systems theories, such as the auditory neurocognitive model. Research supporting language-focused approaches, which attribute risk of EF delays entirely to language delays, has significant limitations. Furthermore, results from an extensive data set of EF outcomes in CI users are inconsistent with language-focused approaches. In contrast, biopsychosocial systems theories, which attribute risk for EF delay to a system of factors, including auditory experience, language, family environment/experiences, fluid intelligence, and psychosocial influences, provide the strongest evidence and potential for explaining EF delays and outcomes in children with CIs.


2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (sup1) ◽  
pp. S84-S88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S Harris ◽  
David B Pisoni ◽  
William G Kronenberger ◽  
Sujuan Gao ◽  
Helena M Caffrey ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 150 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunilla Preisler ◽  
Anna-Lena Tvingstedt ◽  
Margareta Ahlstrom

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document