Cochlear implants and sensory aids for deaf children

Pickett, J. M.; Stark, Rachel E.

doi:10.1016/0165-5876(87)90113-3

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Earlier implantation and clinical advancements in CI habilitation enable deaf children to receive auditory stimulation during the critical period for the development of speech and language skills (Kirk, Miyamoto, Ying, Perdew, & Zuganelis, 2000;Pickett & Stark, 1987). Younger ages of implantation are generally associated with better outcomes in speech perception (Cheng, Grant, & Niparko, 1999;McConkey Robbins, Koch, Osberger, Zimmerman-Phillips, & Kishon-Rabin, 2004;Waltzman, Cohen, Green, & Roland, 2002;Zwolan et al, 2004), speech production (Tye-Murray, Spencer, & Woodworth, 1995), and receptive and expressive language skills (Kirk et al, 2000;Svirsky, Teoh, & Neuberger, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of the Speech and Language Skills of Children With Cochlear Implants and Children With Normal Hearing

Schorr¹,

Roth

Fox

2008

Communication Disorders Quarterly

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored the language skills of children with cochlear implants (CIs) compared to normal hearing (NH) peers. Standardized speech and language measures, including speech articulation, receptive and expressive vocabulary, syntax and morphology, and metalinguistics, were administered to 39 congenitally deaf children, ages 5 to 14, and a matched sample of NH children. Many CI children demonstrated age-appropriate scores on several language measures, yet their performance was significantly lower than NH peers. Results indicated that (a) age at implant predicted significant variance in receptive vocabulary and short-term auditory memory performance, and (b) duration of CI use predicted receptive syntax performance.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of the Speech and Language Skills of Children With Cochlear Implants and Children With Normal Hearing

Schorr¹,

Roth

Fox

2008

Communication Disorders Quarterly

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, earlier implanted children will have shorter lengths of sound deprivation and, conversely, longer auditory experience with a CI than their later implanted peers. Also, these children may benefit from early exposure to sound before the end of critical/sensitive periods for the development of speech and language [Hurford, 1991;Pickett and Stark, 1987;Ruben, 1986]. Indeed, studies have shown that exposure to a specific language in the first 6 months of life alters infants' phonetic perception [Kuhl et al, 1992].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Language and Speech Perception in Congenitally, Profoundly Deaf Children as a Function of Age at Cochlear Implantation

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Like any other surgery requiring anesthesia, cochlear implantation in the first few years of life carries potential risks, which makes it important to assess the potential benefits. This study introduces a new method to assess the effect of age at implantation on cochlear implant outcomes: developmental trajectory analysis (DTA). DTA compares curves representing change in an outcome measure over time (i.e. developmental trajectories) for two groups of children that differ along a potentially important independent variable (e.g. age at intervention). This method was used to compare language development and speech perception outcomes in children who received cochlear implants in the second, third or fourth year of life. Within this range of age at implantation, it was found that implantation before the age of 2 resulted in speech perception and language advantages that were significant both from a statistical and a practical point of view. Additionally, the present results are consistent with the existence of a ‘sensitive period’ for language development, a gradual decline in language acquisition skills as a function of age.

show abstract

“…However, as pointed out in Levitt (1988), the history of tactual aid development has been marked by cyclical periods of interest and activity. Although researchers such as Pickett and Stark ( 1987) suggest that multichannel tactile devices be considered as prime alternatives to multichannel cochlear implants until the relative merits of different devices are more clearly established, there remains a concern that educators, audiologists and otologists may conceive of the cochlear implant as obviating any necessity for further development or usage of tactual devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Role of a Multichannel Electrotactile Speech Processor in a Cochlear Implant Program for Profoundly Hearing-impaired Adults*

et al. 1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four profoundly hearing-impaired adults who did not meet current selection criteria for implantation at the University of Melbourne were each fitted with a wearable multichannel electrotactile speech processor (Tickle Talker). The subjects were evaluated with a test battery of speech discrimination tests subsequent to training in use of the device. Thresholds for detection of pure tones were lower for the Tickle Talker than for hearing aids across the frequency range 250 to 4000 Hz. Mean speech detection thresholds for the Ling 5-sound test showed that all sounds were detected by users of the electrotactile device at normal conversational speech intensity levels. Mean speech discrimination scores were significantly higher (p c 0.05) in the tactually aided condition as compared with the tactually unaided for identification of vowels and consonants, on open-set words, open-set sentences, and on connected discourse tracking. Mean scores increased by 20% for vowels, 19% for consonants, 30% for openset words, and 25% for open-set sentences when the Tickle Talker was used in a multimodal combination with lipreading or lipreading and hearing aids. Speechtracking rates for three subjects showed increases of from 18 to 28 wpm when the tactile device was used. Comparison of tactually aided versus unaided tracking rates for two subjects with long-term experience shows continuing improvement with additional experience with the device. These results demonstrate that hearing-impaired adults not meeting selection criteria for cochlear implantation may benefit from use of an electrotactile speech processor, and highlight the potential benefits from integration of such devices into cochlear implant programs for profoundly hearing-impaired patients. (Ear Hear 12 1:39-46)

show abstract

Cochlear implants and sensory aids for deaf children

Cited by 6 publications

References 36 publications

A Comparison of the Speech and Language Skills of Children With Cochlear Implants and Children With Normal Hearing

A Comparison of the Speech and Language Skills of Children With Cochlear Implants and Children With Normal Hearing

Development of Language and Speech Perception in Congenitally, Profoundly Deaf Children as a Function of Age at Cochlear Implantation

Role of a Multichannel Electrotactile Speech Processor in a Cochlear Implant Program for Profoundly Hearing-impaired Adults*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About