Karen Iler Kirk

Language Development in Profoundly Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants

Although cochlear implants improve the ability of profoundly deaf children to understand speech, critics claim that the published literature does not document even a single case of a child who has developed a linguistic system based on input from an implant. Thus, it is of clinical and scientific importance to determine whether cochlear implants facilitate the development of English language skills. The English language skills of prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants were measured before and after implantation. We found that the rate of language development after implantation exceeded that expected from unimplanted deaf children (p < .001) and was similar to that of children with normal hearing. Despite a large amount of individual variability, the best performers in the implanted group seem to be developing an oral linguistic system based largely on auditory input obtained from a cochlear implant.

Effects of age at implantation in young children.

This study examined the effects of age at implantation on the development of communication abilities in children with early implantation. The 73 participants were prelingually deafened, received a cochlear implant before 5 years of age, and used current cochlear implant technology. The children were administered a battery of speech and language outcome measures before implantation and again at successive 6-month postimplant intervals. A mixed model analysis was used to examine the rate of growth in word recognition and language skills as a function of age at time of implantation. The results revealed significant improvements in communication skills over time. Spoken word recognition improved at a faster rate in the oral children with early implantation. However, the children who underwent implantation before 3 years of age had significantly faster rates of language development than did the children with later implantation. The oral children demonstrated more rapid gains in communication abilities than did the children who used total communication.

Cochlear Implantation in Auditory Neuropathy

Objective: Auditory neuropathy is a recently described clinical entity characterized by sensorineural hearing loss in which the auditory evoked potential (ABR) is absent but otoacoustic emissions are present. This suggests a central locus for the associated hearing loss. In this study the results observed in a child with auditory neuropathy who received a cochlear implant are presented and compared with those of a matched group of children who were recipients of implants. Methods: A single‐subject, repeated‐measures design, evaluating closed‐set and open‐set word recognition abilities was used to assess the subject and a control group of matched children with implants who had also experienced a progressive sensorineural hearing loss. Results: The subject demonstrated improvements in vowel recognition (82% correct) by 1 year after implantation, which were only slightly lower than the control group. Consonant recognition and open‐set word recognition scores were significantly lower. Conclusion: Caution should be exercised when considering cochlear implantation in children with auditory neuropathy. As with conventional hearing aids, less than optimal results may be seen.

Speech and language development in cognitively delayed children with cochlear implants.

Objective: The primary goals of this investigation were to examine the speech and language development of deaf children with cochlear implants and mild cognitive delay and to compare their gains with those of children with cochlear implants who do not have this additional impairment. Design: We retrospectively examined the speech and language development of 69 children with pre-lingual deafness. The experimental group consisted of 19 children with cognitive delays and no other disabilities (mean age at implantation = 38 months). The control group consisted of 50 children who did not have cognitive delays or any other identified disability. The control group was stratified by primary communication mode: half used total communication (mean age at implantation = 32 months) and the other half used oral communication (mean age at implantation = 26 months). Children were tested on a variety of standard speech and language measures and one test of auditory skill development at 6-month intervals. Results: The results from each test were collapsed from blocks of two consecutive 6-month intervals to calculate group mean scores before implantation and at 1-year intervals after implantation. The children with cognitive delays and those without such delays demonstrated significant improvement in their speech and language skills over time on every test administered. Children with cognitive delays had significantly lower scores than typically developing children on two of the three measures of receptive and expressive language and had significantly slower rates of auditory-only sentence recognition development. Finally, there were no significant group differences in auditory skill development based on parental reports or in auditory-only or multimodal word recognition. Conclusions: The results suggest that deaf children with mild cognitive impairments benefit from cochlear implantation. Specifically, improvements are evident in their ability to perceive speech and in their reception and use of language. However, it may be reduced relative to their typically developing peers with cochlear implants, particularly in domains that require higher level skills, such as sentence recognition and receptive and expressive language. These findings suggest that children with mild cognitive deficits be considered for cochlear implantation with less trepidation than has been the case in the past. Although their speech and language gains may be tempered by their cognitive abilities, these limitations do not appear to preclude benefit from cochlear implant stimulation, as assessed by traditional measures of speech and language development.

Communication Skills in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients

Detailed longitudinal studies of speech perception, speech production and language acquisition have justified a significant change in the demographics of congenitally and prelingually deaf children who receive cochlear implants. A trend toward earlier cochlear implantation has been justified by improvements in measures assessing these areas. To assess the influence of age at implantation on performance, age 5 years was used as a benchmark. Thirty-one children who received a Nucleus cochlear implant and use the SPEAK speech processing strategy and two children who received a Clarion cochlear implant and use the CIS strategy served as subjects. The subjects were divided into three groups based on age at implantation. The groups comprised children implanted before the age of 3 years (n = 14), children implanted between 3 years and 3 years 11 months (n = 11) and those implanted between 4 years and 5 years 3 months (n = 8). The children were further divided according to whether they used oral or total communication. The earlier-implanted groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements on measures of speech perception. Improvements in speech intelligibility as a function of age at implant were seen but did not reach statistical significance. The results of the present study demonstrate that early implantation promotes the acquisition of speaking and listening skills.

Children with implants can speak, but can they communicate? ☆ ☆☆ ★

English-language skills were evaluated in two groups of profoundly hearing-impaired children with the Reynell Developmental Language Scales, Revised. The first group consisted of 89 deaf children who had not received cochlear implants. The second group consisted of 23 children wearing Nucleus multichannel cochlear implants. The subjects without implants provided cross-sectional language data used to estimate the amount of language gains expected on the basis of maturation. The Reynell data from the group without implants were subjected to a regression by age. On the basis of this analysis, deaf children were predicted to make half or less of the language gains of their peers with normal hearing. Predicted language scores were then generated for the subjects with implants by using the childrens preimplant Reynell Developmental Language Scale scores. The predicted scores were then compared with actual scores achieved by the subjects with implants 6 and 12 months after implantation. Twelve months after implantation, the subjects demonstrated gains in receptive and expressive language skills that exceeded by 7 months the predictions made on the basis of maturation alone. Moreover, the average language-development rate of the subjects with implants in the first year of device use was equivalent to that of children with normal hearing. These effects were observed for children with implants using both the oral and total-communication methods.

Language Development in Deaf Infants Following Cochlear Implantation

Objective—To evaluate the benefits of cochlear implantation in infancy and compare them to those obtained in children implanted at a slightly older age.Material and Methods—Using standard language measurement tools, including the Grammatical Analysis of Elicited Language—Presentence Level (GAEL-P) and the Reynell Developmental Language Scales, progress was documented in a child who received a cochlear implant in infancy and compared to that achieved in children implanted at older ages. A new measurement tool, the Visual Habituation Procedure, was used to document early skills and the results were compared to those obtained in normal-hearing infants.Results—By the age of 2 years the subject implanted in infancy achieved scores on the GAEL-P which were nearly equivalent to those achieved at the age of 51/2 years by children implanted at later ages. Age-equivalent scores on the Reynell Developmental Language Scales were achieved by the subject implanted in infancy and the ability to discriminate speech patterns was demonstrated using the Visual Habituation Procedure.Conclusion—This report demonstrates enhanced language development in an infant who received a cochlear implant at the age of 6 months.

Use of audiovisual information in speech perception by prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants: a first report.

Objective Although there has been a great deal of recent empirical work and new theoretical interest in audiovisual speech perception in both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired adults, relatively little is known about the development of these abilities and skills in deaf children with cochlear implants. This study examined how prelingually deafened children combine visual information available in the talker’s face with auditory speech cues provided by their cochlear implants to enhance spoken language comprehension. Design Twenty-seven hearing-impaired children who use cochlear implants identified spoken sentences presented under auditory-alone and audiovisual conditions. Five additional measures of spoken word recognition performance were used to assess auditory-alone speech perception skills. A measure of speech intelligibility was also obtained to assess the speech production abilities of these children. Results A measure of audiovisual gain, “Ra,” was computed using sentence recognition scores in auditory-alone and audiovisual conditions. Another measure of audiovisual gain, “Rv,” was computed using scores in visual-alone and audiovisual conditions. The results indicated that children who were better at recognizing isolated spoken words through listening alone were also better at combining the complementary sensory information about speech articulation available under audiovisual stimulation. In addition, we found that children who received more benefit from audiovisual presentation also produced more intelligible speech, suggesting a close link between speech perception and production and a common underlying linguistic basis for audiovisual enhancement effects. Finally, an examination of the distribution of children enrolled in Oral Communication (OC) and Total Communication (TC) indicated that OC children tended to score higher on measures of audiovisual gain, spoken word recognition, and speech intelligibility. Conclusions The relationships observed between auditory-alone speech perception, audiovisual benefit, and speech intelligibility indicate that these abilities are not based on independent language skills, but instead reflect a common source of linguistic knowledge, used in both perception and production, that is based on the dynamic, articulatory motions of the vocal tract. The effects of communication mode demonstrate the important contribution of early sensory experience to perceptual development, specifically, language acquisition and the use of phonological processing skills. Intervention and treatment programs that aim to increase receptive and productive spoken language skills, therefore, may wish to emphasize the inherent cross-correlations that exist between auditory and visual sources of information in speech perception.

Language skills of profoundly deaf children who received cochlear implants under 12 months of age: a preliminary study

Conclusion. This study demonstrated that children who receive a cochlear implant below the age of 2 years obtain higher mean receptive and expressive language scores than children implanted over the age of 2 years. Objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the receptive and expressive language skills of children who received a cochlear implant before 1 year of age to the language skills of children who received an implant between 1 and 3 years of age. Subjects and methods. Standardized language measures, the Reynell Developmental Language Scale (RDLS) and the Preschool Language Scale (PLS), were used to assess the receptive and expressive language skills of 91 children who received an implant before their third birthday. Results. The mean receptive and expressive language scores for the RDLS and the PLS were slightly higher for the children who were implanted below the age of 2 years compared with the children who were implanted over 2 years old. For the PLS, both the receptive and expressive mean standard scores decreased with increasing age at implantation.

Some Considerations in Evaluating Spoken Word Recognition by Normal-Hearing, Noise-Masked Normal-Hearing, and Cochlear Implant Listeners. I: The Effects of Response Format

Objective: The purpose of the present studies was to assess the validity of using closed‐set response formats to measure two cognitive processes essential for recognizing spoken words‐perceptual normalization (the ability to accommodate acoustic‐phonetic variability) and lexical discrimination (the ability to isolate words in the mental lexicon). In addition, the experiments were designed to examine the effects of response format on evaluation of these two abilities in normal‐hearing (NH), noise‐masked normal‐hearing (NMNH), and cochlear implant (CI) subject populations. Design: The speech recognition performance of NH, NMNH, and CI listeners was measured using both open‐ and closed‐set response formats under a number of experimental conditions. To assess talker normalization abilities, identification scores for words produced by a single talker were compared with recognition performance for items produced by multiple talkers. To examine lexical discrimination, performance for words that are phonetically similar to many other words (hard words) was compared with scores for items with few phonetically similar competitors (easy words). Results: Open‐set word identification for all subjects was significantly poorer when stimuli were produced in lists with multiple talkers compared with conditions in which all of the words were spoken by a single talker. Open‐set word recognition also was better for lexically easy compared with lexically hard words. Closed‐set tests, in contrast, failed to reveal the effects of either talker variability or lexical difficulty even when the response alternatives provided were systematically selected to maximize confusability with target items. Conclusions: These findings suggest that, although closed‐set tests may provide important information for clinical assessment of speech perception, they may not adequately evaluate a number of cognitive processes that are necessary for recognizing spoken words. The parallel results obtained across all subject groups indicate that NH, NMNH, and CI listeners engage similar perceptual operations to identify spoken words. Implications of these findings for the design of new test batteries that can provide comprehensive evaluations of the individual capacities needed for processing spoken language are discussed.