Cochlear implant in the second year of life: lexical and grammatical outcomes.

Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Rome, Italy.
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (Impact Factor: 1.97). 01/2012; 55(2):382-94. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0248)
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The authors studied the effect of the cochlear implant (CI) on language comprehension and production in deaf children who had received a CI in the 2nd year of life.
The authors evaluated lexical and morphosyntactic skills in comprehension and production in 17 Italian children who are deaf (M = 54 months of age) with a CI and in 2 control groups of children with normal hearing (NH; 1 matched for chronological age and the other whose chronological age corresponded to the duration of CI activation). The authors also compared children with unilateral CI to children with bilateral CI.
Children with CI appeared to keep pace with NH children matched for time since CI activation in terms of language acquisition, and they were similar to same-age NH children in lexical production. However, children with CI showed difficulties in lexical comprehension when a task required phonological discrimination as well as in grammar comprehension and production. Children with bilateral CI showed better comprehension than did children with unilateral CI; the 2 groups were similar for production.
Activation of CI in the 2nd year of life may provide children who are deaf with a good opportunity to develop language skills, although some limitations in phonological and morphological skills are still present 3 years after auditory reafferentation.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cochlear implantation has considerably improved oral language in prelingually hearing –impaired children . The main objective of this article is review of articles about speech and language development in children with cochlear implant. Material and Method: In this article we reviewed articles between 1997 and 2013 about speech and language development in pre-lingual deaf children after cochlear implantation. We searched Science direct, Medline, and Google scholar search engines with the cochlear implant, speech and language keywords. Result: Cochlear implantation in prelingually deaf children result in acquire oral language skills. Early diagnosis of hearing impairment, Early cochlear implantation ,length of hearing,monolingualism,involvement of the parents in rehabilitation processes are important factors that influence on language development in deaf children. Conclusion: Cochlear implantation under 24 months of chronological age decreases of the interval of hearing age and calendar age for speech reception and production.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: This study targets to analyse mother–child interactions in two groups of children with different hearing levels: normally hearing children (NH) and congenitally hearing-impaired children with a cochlear implant (CI). Mothers of hearing-impaired children are shown to use less speech in interactions with their children than mothers of normally hearing children. We aim to investigate whether this observation also holds for mothers of CI children. Methods: Transcriptions of spontaneous conversations of ten CI children and ten NH children were analysed. We examined whether mothers responded to their children’s utterances and whether they repeated or incorporated them in their own follow-up. Conversations were analysed in two consecutive stages, namely a prelexical stage and a lexical one. Results: Mothers of CI children responded significantly more often to their children’s utterances in both the prelexical and lexical stage. They also incorporated their children’s utterances more often, however this was only significantinthe lexical stage. The type of child utterance was animportanttrigger for the amount of mothers’ responses. All mothers responded significantly more often to lexical utterances in the lexical stage. In the prelexical stage, however, precanonical utterances received the same amount of responses as canonical babbles. Nevertheless, all mothers incorporated canonical babbles more often than precanonical vocalisations in the prelexical stage and lexical utterances more often in the lexical stage. Conclusions: First, mothers of CI children are more responsive to their children’s utterances suggesting that they are aware of their children’s hearing status. Second, type of child utterance is an important trigger for both mothers’ response level and mothers’ type of response in the prelexical and lexical stage
    International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 01/2015; · 1.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims at investigating the impact of cochlear implant (CI) use for phonological development. The main participants were a group of 14 deaf children who had received their CIs in the second year of life, and who had been wearing them for 24 months. A group of normally hearing (NH) children aged 24 months old was also evaluated. Data was obtained from a non-word repetition (NWR) task. Various segmental and suprasegmental measures were obtained from the NWR data. The CI children scored significantly below the controls for one feature (i.e. place of articulation) and for segment substitutions. Suprasegmental analyses revealed that the CI children made fewer errors with unfooted syllables and more stress errors than the NH children. Stress errors were correlated with segmental/feature errors in the CI children exclusively. We conclude that CI users struggle to acquire consonants, which may cascade into further prosodic deficits. The results are interpreted in terms of a motor control model of speech production. We suggest that CIs provide sufficient information to learn rudimentary auditory representations for syllables; however, such auditory representations might not be detailed enough to implicitly derive the somatosensory consequences of the individual consonants.
    Journal of Neurolinguistics 09/2014; 31:1–16. · 1.60 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 4, 2014