Independent Evaluation of the Speech Perception Abilities of Children with the Nucleus 22-Channel Cochlear Implant System

Osberger, Mary Joe; Miyamoto, Richard T.; Zimmerman‐Phillips, Susan; Kemink, John L.; Stroer, Barbara S.; Firszt, Jill B.; Novák, Michael

doi:10.1097/00003446-199108001-00009

Cited by 131 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…16 Because our stimulus set required a more difficult discrimination than was typically used in the few studies that have asked children with CIs to make judgments about the indexical properties of speech, we did expect that the hearing-impaired children would find our talker discrimination tasks more difficult. Even so, we were surprised at just how difficult many of the children with CIs found the varied sentence condition, particularly given that this particular discrimination was well within the capacities of normally developing children.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Talker Discrimination by Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Preliminary Results

Cleary¹,

Pisoni²

2002

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forty-four school-age children who had used a multichannel cochlear implant (CI) for at least 4 years were tested to assess their ability to discriminate differences between recorded pairs of female voices uttering sentences. Children were asked to respond "same voice" or "different voice" on each trial. Two conditions were examined. In one condition, the linguistic content of the sentence was always held constant and only the talker's voice varied from trial to trial. In another condition, the linguistic content of the utterance also varied so that to correctly respond "same voice," the child needed to recognize that two different sentences were spoken by the same talker. Data from normal-hearing children were used to establish that these tasks were well within the capabilities of children without hearing impairment. For the children with CIs, in the "fixed sentence condition" the mean proportion correct was 68%, which, although significantly different from the 50% score expected by chance, suggests that the children with CIs found this discrimination task rather difficult. In the "varied sentence condition," however, the mean proportion correct was only 57%, indicating that the children were essentially unable to recognize an unfamiliar talker's voice when the linguistic content of the paired sentences differed. Correlations with other speech and language outcome measures are also reported.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Talker Discrimination by Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Preliminary Results

Cleary¹,

Pisoni²

2002

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users (i.e., those who learned language before becoming deaf) can understand some speech without lipreading and can also conduct fluent conversations with the aid of lipreading (Skinner et al, 1994). The most successful can communicate fluently over the telephone (Gstoettner, Hamzavi, & Czerny, 1997), a difficult task because there are no visual cues to aid communication and because the acoustic signal is limited in frequency and possibly distorted by the telephone lines.The use of cochlear implants has been clearly successful in postlingually deafened adults, but several studies demonstrate that multi-channel cochlear implants also promote the development of speech perception and speech production in prelingually deafened children (Geers & Tobey, 1995;Osberger et al, 1991;Tyler et al, 1997;Waltzman et al, 1990). Recent studies of early-implanted children using state-of-the-art devices and stimulation strategies show that cochlear implants provide important sensory information to deaf children.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of cochlear implants has been clearly successful in postlingually deafened adults, but several studies demonstrate that multi-channel cochlear implants also promote the development of speech perception and speech production in prelingually deafened children (Geers & Tobey, 1995;Osberger et al, 1991;Tyler et al, 1997;Waltzman et al, 1990). Recent studies of early-implanted children using state-of-the-art devices and stimulation strategies show that cochlear implants provide important sensory information to deaf children.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Development in Profoundly Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants

et al. 2000

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although cochlear implants improve the ability of profoundly deaf children to understand speech, critics claim that the published literature does not document even a single case of a child who has developed a linguistic system based on input from an implant. Thus, it is of clinical and scientific importance to determine whether cochlear implants facilitate the development of English language skills. The English language skills of prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants were measured before and after implantation. We found that the rate of language development after implantation exceeded that expected from unimplanted deaf children (p < .001) and was similar to that of children with normal hearing. Despite a large amount of individual variability, the best performers in the implanted group seem to be developing an oral linguistic system based largely on auditory input obtained from a cochlear implant.Most children who are born profoundly deaf or who become deaf before the age of 3 fall significantly behind their normal-hearing peers in their mastery of the surrounding oral language in its written, read, spoken, and signed forms. Studies of English achievement in this population document significant delays in all language domains (Davis, 1974;Geers, Kuehn, & Moog, 1981;Levitt, McGarr, & Geffner, 1987;Osberger, Moeller, Eccarius, Robbins, & Johnson, 1986). Lexical-semantic and syntactic-morphological abilities have been shown to be severely delayed regardless of whether the profoundly deaf children used oral communication (OC, which excludes the use of manual signs) or total communication (TC, the simultaneous use of oral and manual language). Numerous studies have found that profoundly prelingually deaf children lag in their English language abilities with respect to normal-hearing children. For example, a group of children was tested before and after a 3-year experimental instructional program designed to provide maximum academic achievement under ideal conditions (Moog & Geers, 1985). These children were deaf at birth or before their first birthday, received early amplification and instruction, and had at least average nonverbal intelligence. After training, despite a mean age of 9.92 years, their receptive and expressive language abilities (as tested with the Northwestern Syntax Screening Test, which samples a variety of syntactic English skills; Lee, 1971) were at the level of normal-hearing 4.5-to 6.3-year-olds. Delays in language development were also found in a large-scale study of Stanford Achievement Test Reading Comprehension scores in 8-to 18-year-old hearing-impaired students who received special services in schools throughout the United States. The study showed that by the time these students finished high school, their median reading comprehension levels were below those of average normal-hearing third graders (Allen, 1986 Until the early 1980s, there was no treatment that would allow profoundly deaf persons to improve their hearing so they could understand speech again. With the a...

show abstract

“…Open set speech perception was assessed by the Phonetically Balanced Kindergarten test for phonemes and words [16]. Open set sentence comprehension was assessed with the Common Phrases test [17] which was administered in auditory, visual, and audiovisual modalities. Vocabulary knowledge was measured with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and receptive and expressive language skills were assessed by the Reynell Developmental Language Scales 3rd edition [18,19], and were administered using the child's preferred mode of communication (oral or manual).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual attention, behavioral inhibition and speech/language outcomes in deaf children with cochlear implants

Horn

Davis

Pisoni

et al. 2004

International Congress Series

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated relations between sustained visual attention, behavioral inhibition skills, and speech-language outcomes in prelingually deaf children who use cochlear implants (CIs) using two computerized continuous performance tasks (CPTs). One test measured their ability to sustain visual attention to a string of numbers and another test measured their ability to delay a behavioral response. Performance on latter task was related to postimplant scores on tests of vocabulary knowledge, language skills, and speech intelligibility. We conclude that behavioral inhibition skills of prelingually deaf children are related to several audiological outcome measures in deaf children with CIs. Our findings suggest that further investigation is warranted into executive functions and subvocal rehearsal skills of deaf children with CIs.

show abstract

Independent Evaluation of the Speech Perception Abilities of Children with the Nucleus 22-Channel Cochlear Implant System

Cited by 131 publications

References 12 publications

Talker Discrimination by Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Preliminary Results

Talker Discrimination by Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Preliminary Results

Language Development in Profoundly Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants

Visual attention, behavioral inhibition and speech/language outcomes in deaf children with cochlear implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About