Use of a cochlear implant has had a dramatic impact on the linguistic competence of profoundly hearing-impaired children. More than half of the children in this sample with average learning ability produced and understood English language at a level comparable with that of their hearing age mates. Such mature language outcomes were not typical of children with profound hearing loss who used hearing aids. Use of a visual (i.e., sign) language system did not provide the linguistic advantage that had been anticipated. Children educated without use of sign exhibited a significant advantage in their use of narratives, the breadth of their vocabulary, in their use of bound morphemes, in the length of their utterances and in the complexity of the syntax used in their spontaneous language. An oral educational focus provided a significant advantage for both spoken and total language skills.

Children who received a cochlear implant before a substantial delay in spoken language developed (i.e., between 12 and 16 months) were more likely to achieve age-appropriate spoken language. These results favor cochlear implantation before 24 months of age, especially for children with aided pure-tone average thresholds greater than 65 dB prior to surgery.

Longer use of a cochlear implant in infancy and very early childhood dramatically affects the amount of spoken language exhibited by 3-yr-old, profoundly deaf children. In this sample, the amount of pre-implant intervention with a hearing aid was not related to language outcome at 3.5 yr of age. Rather, it was cochlear implantation at a younger age that served to promote spoken language competence. The previously identified language-facilitating factors of early identification of hearing impairment and early educational intervention may not be sufficient for optimizing spoken language of profoundly deaf children unless it leads to early cochlear implantation.

Purpose To determine whether the precise age of implantation (AOI) remains an important predictor of spoken language outcomes in later childhood for those who received a cochlear implant (CI) between 12–38 months of age. Relative advantages of receiving a bilateral CI after age 4.5, better pre-CI aided hearing, and longer CI experience were also examined. Method Sixty children participated in a prospective longitudinal study of outcomes at 4.5 and 10.5 years of age. Twenty-nine children received a sequential second CI. Test scores were compared to normative samples of hearing age-mates and predictors of outcomes identified. Results Standard scores on language tests at 10.5 years of age remained significantly correlated with age of first cochlear implantation. Scores were not associated with receipt of a second, sequentially-acquired CI. Significantly higher scores were achieved for vocabulary as compared with overall language, a finding not evident when the children were tested at younger ages. Conclusion Age-appropriate spoken language skills continued to be more likely with younger AOI, even after an average of 8.6 years of additional CI use. Receipt of a second implant between ages 4–10 years and longer duration of device use did not provide significant added benefit.

Deaf children who have used a cochlear implant for 4 to 6 yr report that they are coping successfully with the demands of their social and school environment, regardless of their speech and language achievements after implantation. Parents' ratings indicate that these children are emotionally and socially well adjusted and that they have benefited from cochlear implantation. To the extent that the children and their parents accurately reported their attitudes and feelings regarding their experiences at home and at school, these results represent an impressive level of personal and social adjustment when compared with previous literature on adjustment problems in deaf children. The extent to which these results are associated with cochlear implantation has not been determined and awaits comparative data from children without implants.

Purpose: The purpose of the present investigation is to differentiate children using cochlear implants (CIs) who did or did not achieve age-appropriate language scores by midelementary grades and to identify risk factors for persistent language delay following early cochlear implantation. Materials and Method: Children receiving unilateral CIs at young ages (12-38 months) were tested longitudinally and classified with normal language emergence (n = 19), late language emergence (n = 22), or persistent language delay (n = 19) on the basis of their test scores at 4.5 and 10.5 years of age. Relative effects of demographic, audiological, linguistic, and academic characteristics on language emergence were determined.Results: Age at CI was associated with normal language emergence but did not differentiate late emergence from persistent delay. Children with persistent delay were more likely to use left-ear implants and older speech processor technology. They experienced higher aided thresholds and lower speech perception scores. Persistent delay was foreshadowed by low morphosyntactic and phonological diversity in preschool. Logistic regression analysis predicted normal language emergence with 84% accuracy and persistent language delay with 74% accuracy. Conclusion: CI characteristics had a strong effect on persistent versus resolving language delay, suggesting that right-ear (or bilateral) devices, technology upgrades, and improved audibility may positively influence long-term language outcomes.

Research studies reviewed here have identified a wide variety of factors that may influence a child's auditory, speech and language development following cochlear implantation. Intrinsic characteristics of the implanted child, including gender, family socio-economic status, age at onset of hearing loss and pre-implant residual hearing may predispose a child to greater or lesser post-implant benefit. Intervention characteristics that may influence outcome include age of the child when deafness is identified and amplification and habilitation is initiated, the communication mode used with the child and the type of classroom/therapy employed. Characteristics of the implant itself include generation of technology used, the age of the child when implant stimulation is initiated, and the amount of time the child has used the implant. These factors interact in unpredictable ways, so that isolated correlations between predictor variables and outcome scores may be difficult to interpret. Results for two independent samples of orally-educated children tested by different laboratories were compared using multiple regression analysis to illustrate interactions among predictor variables. Four predictor variables accounted for a similar proportion of variance (23% and 24%) in receptive vocabulary (PPVT) outcome scores in each sample. A unique predictor was then added to each analysis. The addition of pre-implant aided threshold not only increased the total variance accounted for to almost 40%, but also increased the effect of implant age as a predictor variable. A different result was observed in the other sample, were the added predictor variable was nonverbal IQ, where the estimated contribution of implant age was reduced. The current analysis suggests that future analyses minimally control for independent contributions of implant age, nonverbal IQ, and pre-implant aided thresholds when examining expected outcomes. Children in both samples who received a cochlear implant sometime between their first and second birthday achieved age-appropriate oral receptive vocabulary levels during preschool.

This study was performed to investigate factors contributing to auditory, speech, language, and reading outcomes after 4 to 6 years of multichannel cochlear implant use in children with prelingual deafness. The analysis controlled for the effects of child, family, and implant characteristics so that the educational factors most conducive to maximum implant benefit could be identified. We tested 136 children from across the United States and Canada. All were 8 or 9 years of age, had an onset of deafness before 3 years of age, underwent implantation by 5 years of age, and resided in a monolingual English-speaking home environment. Characteristics of the child and the family (primarily nonverbal IQ) accounted for approximately 20% of the variance in outcome after implantation. An additional 24% was accounted for by implant characteristics and 12% by educational variables, particularly communication mode. Oral education appears to be an important educational choice for children who have undergone cochlear implantation before 5 years of age.