Examining Speech Sound Acquisition for Children With Cochlear Implants Using the GFTA-2

Alveolar and Postalveolar Voiceless Fricative and Affricate Productions of Spanish–English Bilingual Children With Cochlear Implants

“…cues. These results are consistent with existing studies that found that children with CIs can have phonological skills commensurate with those of their peers with NH when matching the chronological age of children with NH to the duration of device use for children with CIs (Flipsen, 2011). Nevertheless, our results also indicated that for children with CIs, the robustness of the temporal cues (duration and rise time) yielded more reliable differentiation of the fricative-affricate dimension than the frequency cue (centroid frequency), distinguishing place of articulation.…”

Speech Production Accuracy and Variability in Monolingual and Bilingual Children With Cochlear Implants: A Comparison to Their Peers With Normal Hearing

“…Although many levels of linguistic processing are involved in an NWR task (e.g., speech perception, phonological working memory, articulation ability), several researchers have argued that poor NWR ability primarily reflects deficits in the ability to generate "highly refined phonological representations" (Nittrouer et al, 2014, p. 680). In addition, researchers have found atypical substitution patterns in the speech samples of monolingual English-speaking children with CIs (Chin, 2003), atypical order of acquisition of phonemes (Ertmer & Goffman, 2011), and, as previously noted, disproportional problems with specific phonemes (Flipsen, 2011) that may reflect differences in the quality of the underlying phonological representations. If children with CIs do in fact have particular difficulty establishing robust phonological representations and wholeword variability, as previously proposed, is indicative of unstable or "holistic" phonological representations, then higher rates of whole-word variability in children who use CIs would be expected.…”

“…Chin, 2003), differences in the phoneme inventories (cf. Ertmer & Goffman, 2011), and disproportionally more problems with certain phonemes such as the velar nasal and /t/ compared to their typically developing peers with NH (Flipsen, 2011). Additionally, previous studies have found increased rates of whole-word variability in monolingual children who use CIs (Chin, 2003;Chin & Pisoni, 2000;Ertmer & Goffman, 2011;Faes & Gillis, 2018;Ingram, McCartney, Bunta, Costa, & Freitas, 2001;Moreno-Torres, 2014).…”

Consonant Acquisition in Young Cochlear Implant Recipients and Their Typically Developing Peers

“…Early studies of consonant inventories, consonant accuracy, and speech intelligibility in children with relatively older ages at implantation show significant increases following implantation but less than typical levels of performance in these areas (e.g., Chin & Pisoni, 2000;Kirk, Diefendorf, Riley, & Osberger, 1995;Miyamoto, Kirk, Robbins, Todd, & Riley, 1996;Tobey, Pancamo, Staller, Brimacombe, & Beiter, 1991). More recent studies have shown that relatively young CI recipients at the time of implantation also increased consonant inventories, consonant accuracy, and intelligibility following implantation but continued to lag behind TD children, especially when matched for chronological age (e.g., Connor et al, 2006;Dettman et al, 2016;Ertmer, Kloiber, Jung, Kirleis, & Bradford, 2012;Flipsen, 2011;Spencer & Guo, 2013;Tobey, Geers, Brenner, Altuna, & Gabbert, 2003;Tomblin, Peng, Spencer, & Lu, 2008;Tye-Murray, Spencer, & Woodworth, 1995). With one exception (Tobey et al, 2003), these studies also showed that the younger the age at implantation, the more favorable the outcome for consonant production.…”