Early Expressive Language Skills Predict Long-Term Neurocognitive Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence from the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories

Castellanos, Irina; Pisoni, David B.; Kronenberger, William G.; Beer, Jessica

doi:10.1044/2016_ajslp-15-0023

Cited by 28 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…13 This norm-referenced assessment has been extensively validated with typically developing children 14, 15 as well as those with a variety of different disabilities, 16, 17 including hearing loss. 18, 19 Families in which the language of the home was Spanish completed the Spanish version of this instrument. 20 Expressive vocabulary ability was selected as the dependent variable because vocabulary size and rate of word learning are important predictors of later language and academic skills.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Hearing Detection and Vocabulary of Children With Hearing Loss

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES To date, no studies have examined vocabulary outcomes of children meeting all 3 components of the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) guidelines (hearing screening by 1 month, diagnosis of hearing loss by 3 months, and intervention by 6 months of age). The primary purpose of the current study was to examine the impact of the current EHDI 1-3-6 policy on vocabulary outcomes across a wide geographic area. A secondary goal was to confirm the impact of other demographic variables previously reported to be related to language outcomes. METHODS This was a cross-sectional study of 448 children with bilateral hearing loss between 8 and 39 months of age (mean = 25.3 months, SD = 7.5 months). The children lived in 12 different states and were participating in the National Early Childhood Assessment Project. RESULTS The combination of 6 factors in a regression analysis accounted for 41% of the variance in vocabulary outcomes. Vocabulary quotients were significantly higher for children who met the EHDI guidelines, were younger, had no additional disabilities, had mild to moderate hearing loss, had parents who were deaf or hard of hearing, and had mothers with higher levels of education. CONCLUSIONS Vocabulary learning may be enhanced with system improvements that increase the number of children meeting the current early identification and intervention guidelines. In addition, intervention efforts need to focus on preventing widening delays with chronological age, assisting mothers with lower levels of education, and incorporating adults who are deaf/hard-of-hearing in the intervention process.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early Hearing Detection and Vocabulary of Children With Hearing Loss

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is possible that differences in imitation behaviors, gestures and perceptuo-motor links related to joint attention between mother and child are the fundamental processes that actually underlie the observations obtained from the analysis of the videotapes. 55 , 56 , 57 …”

Section: Challenge No 2: Preimplant Predictors Of Outcomes After Impmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other family and psycho-social factors may also contribute to poor outcomes too. 57 , 59 , 60 , 61 These domains need to be assessed and carefully evaluated as well along with quantitative measures obtained from behavioral tests.…”

Section: Challenge No 3: Developing Novel Interventions For Poor Outmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three challenges for future research on cochlear implants

Pisoni¹,

Kronenberger²,

Harris³

et al. 2017

World j. otorhinolaryngol.-head neck surg.

Self Cite

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implants (CIs) often work very well for many children and adults with profound sensorineural (SNHL) hearing loss. Unfortunately, while many CI patients display substantial benefits in recognizing speech and understanding spoken language following cochlear implantation, a large number of patients achieve poor outcomes. Understanding and explaining the reasons for poor outcomes following implantation is a very challenging research problem that has received little attention despite the pressing clinical significance. In this paper, we discuss three challenges for future research on CIs. First, we consider the issue of individual differences and variability in outcomes following implantation. At the present time, we still do not have a complete and satisfactory account of the causal underlying factors that are responsible for the enormous individual differences and variability in outcomes. Second, we discuss issues related to the lack of preimplant predictors of outcomes. Very little prospective research has been carried out on the development of preimplant predictors that can be used to reliably identify CI candidates who may be at high risk for a poor outcome following implantation. Other than conventional demographics and hearing history, there are no prognostic tools available to predict speech recognition outcomes after implantation. Finally, we discuss the third challenge — what to do with a CI-user who has a poor outcome. We suggest that new research efforts need to be devoted to studying this neglected clinical population in greater depth to find out why they are doing poorly with their CI and what novel interventions and treatments can be developed to improve their speech recognition outcomes. Using these three challenges as objectives for future research on CIs, we suggest that the field needs to adopt a new narrative grounded in theory and methods from Cognitive Hearing Science and information processing theory. Without knowing which specific biological and neurocognitive factors are responsible for individual differences or understanding the underlying sensory and neurocognitive basis for variability in performance, it is impossible to select a specific approach to habilitation after a deaf adult or child receives a CI. Deaf adults and children who are performing poorly with their CIs are not a homogeneous group and may differ in many different ways from each other, reflecting the dysfunction of multiple brain systems associated with both congenital and acquired deafness. Hearing loss is not only an ear issue, it is also a brain issue too reflecting close links between perception and action and brain, body and world working together as a functionally integrated information processing system to support robust speech recognition and spoken language processing after implantation.

show abstract

“…Theoretical accounts that emphasize the role of auditory access (e.g., the auditory connectome model, Kral et al, 2016; the auditory scaffolding hypothesis, Conway et al, 2009; cognitive hearing science, Arlinger et al, 2009) posit relatively novel and as-yet-unspecified connections between low-level sensation/perception and higher-order cognition. Meanwhile, accounts that emphasize the role of language access (e.g., Barker et al, 2009;Botting et al, 2016;Castellanos, Pisoni, Kronenberger, & Beer, 2016;Dammeyer, 2010;Figueras, Edwards, & Langdon, 2008;Marshall et al, 2015;Remine, Care, & Brown, 2008) posit a different cognitive architecture, with the primary links occurring among higher-order cognitive processes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the literature is divided as to the causal nature of these connections. Although most authors acknowledge the possibility of complex interrelationships among hearing, language, EF, and additional domains (e.g., the social environment), some have proposed that deafness has direct effects on EF and other high-level cognitive processes (Arlinger et al, 2009;Conway et al, 2009Conway et al, , 2011Kral et al, 2016;Kronenberger, Beer, et al, 2014;Kronenberger, Colson, et al, 2014;Kronenberger et al, 2013;Pisoni et al, 2010), whereas others emphasize that there is no evidence for a role of auditory access that cannot also be explained by language access (Barker et al, 2009;Botting et al, 2016;Castellanos et al, 2016;Dammeyer, 2010;Figueras et al, 2008;Marshall et al, 2015;Remine et al, 2008). A third possibility, suggested by Conway et al (2009), inter alia, is that differences in social environments could also account for (or at least contribute to) these apparent deaf-hearing differences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Executive Function in Deaf Children: Auditory Access and Language Access

Hall

Eigsti

Bortfeld

et al. 2018

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These results indicate that healthy EF skills do not require audition and therefore that difficulties in this domain do not result primarily from a lack of auditory experience. Instead, results are consistent with the hypothesis that language proficiency, whether in sign or speech, is crucial for the development of healthy EF. Further research is needed to test whether sign language proficiency also confers benefits to deaf children from hearing families.

show abstract

Early Expressive Language Skills Predict Long-Term Neurocognitive Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence from the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories

Cited by 28 publications

References 28 publications

Early Hearing Detection and Vocabulary of Children With Hearing Loss

Early Hearing Detection and Vocabulary of Children With Hearing Loss

Three challenges for future research on cochlear implants

Executive Function in Deaf Children: Auditory Access and Language Access

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About