Pragmatic Language Skills: A Comparison of Children With Cochlear Implants and Children Without Hearing Loss

Socher, Michaela; Lyxell, Björn; Ellis, Rachel; Gärskog, Malin; Hedström, Ingrid; Wass, Malin

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02243

Cited by 33 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results from the non-verbal intelligence task have been reported in another study about pragmatic language ability (Socher et al, 2019). Missing data and differences in matching procedure led to the differences in terms of the sample include here and in the study about pragmatic language ability.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 75%

Comparison of Expressive Spoken Language Skills in Children With Cochlear Implants and Children With Typical Hearing

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When children start formal education, they are expected to be able to express complex thoughts. However, in order to do so, they need to be able to use both complex grammatical structures and a variety of words. One group that is at risk of having a delay in terms of their expressive language ability is children with cochlear implants (CI). In this study, we evaluated whether children with CI perform comparably to children with typical hearing (TH) on a standard expressive spoken grammar and a standard expressive spoken vocabulary task when the groups were matched on non-verbal intelligence and working memory capacity. It was found that the children with CI in this study performed more poorly on a standard expressive spoken vocabulary task but not on a standard expressive spoken grammar task when compared to the children with TH. Differences in terms of expressive spoken vocabulary do not seem to be explained by differences in cognitive ability. In addition, the variation in terms of expressive spoken language ability was larger in the children with CI compared to the children with TH. This might be explained by additional confounding factors, like the time of language deprivation or by a greater influence of cognitive differences for the acquisition of spoken language for children with CI.

show abstract

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 75%

Comparison of Expressive Spoken Language Skills in Children With Cochlear Implants and Children With Typical Hearing

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The testing was part of two larger research projects (Socher, 2020;Wass et al, 2019) and the children were tested on more tasks than are reported here. The results from the verbal fluency task from the project by Socher (2020) have previously been used in another paper on pragmatic language ability (Socher et al, 2019). The results from the verbal fluency task from the project by Wass et al have previously been reported in an article on orthographic learning (Wass et al, 2019).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the semantic networks of children with cochlear implants and children with typical hearing: Effects of length of language access.

Socher¹,

Löfkvist²,

Wass³

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Kenett et al. (2013) report that the sematic network of children with CI is less structured compared to the sematic network of children with TH. This study aims to evaluate if such differences are only evident if children with CI are compared to children with TH matched on chronological age, or also if they are compared to children with TH matched on hearing age. Method: The performance of a group of children with CI on a verbal fluency task was compared to the performance of a group of chronological-age matched children with TH. Subsequently, computational network analysis was used to compare the semantic network structure of the groups. The same procedure was applied to compare a group of children with CI to a group of hearing-age matched children with TH. Results: Children with CI performed significantly more poorly than children with TH matched on chronological age on a semantic fluency task and exhibited a significantly less structured semantic network. No significant difference in performance on a semantic fluency task was found between children with CI and children with TH matched on hearing-age. However, the structure of the semantic network differed significantly for the hearing age matched groups. Conclusions: Although the groups perform on the same level on a sematic fluency task, the semantic network for spoken language of children with CI is less structured compared to children with TH matched on hearing age. Reasons for this might be differences in the (perceptual) quality and the quantity of spoken language input.

show abstract

“…The data collection for the children with TD (Ref: 2015/308-31) and adolescents with ID (Ref: 2017/139-31) was approved by the local Research Ethics Review Committee in Linköping. The results from the semantic verbal fluency test of the TD group have been reported in another study about pragmatic language ability [27]. The result from the semantic verbal fluency data of the ID group is used in two pre-registered studies investigating reading ability in adolescents with ID [26].…”

Section: Participants and Recruitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural Differences of the Semantic Network in Adolescents with Intellectual Disability

Nilsson

Palmqvist

Ivarsson

et al. 2021

BDCC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The semantic network structure is a core aspect of the mental lexicon and is, therefore, a key to understanding language development processes. This study investigated the structure of the semantic network of adolescents with intellectual disability (ID) and children with typical development (TD) using network analysis. The semantic networks of the participants (nID = 66; nTD = 49) were estimated from the semantic verbal fluency task with the pathfinder method. The groups were matched on the number of produced words. The average shortest path length (ASPL), the clustering coefficient (CC), and the network’s modularity (Q) of the two groups were compared. A significantly smaller ASPL and Q and a significantly higher CC were found for the adolescents with ID in comparison with the children with TD. Reasons for this might be differences in the language environment and differences in cognitive skills. The quality and quantity of the language input might differ for adolescents with ID due to differences in school curricula and because persons with ID tend to engage in different out-of-school activities compared to TD peers. Future studies should investigate the influence of different language environments on the language development of persons with ID.

show abstract

Pragmatic Language Skills: A Comparison of Children With Cochlear Implants and Children Without Hearing Loss

Cited by 33 publications

References 50 publications

Comparison of Expressive Spoken Language Skills in Children With Cochlear Implants and Children With Typical Hearing

Comparison of Expressive Spoken Language Skills in Children With Cochlear Implants and Children With Typical Hearing

Comparing the semantic networks of children with cochlear implants and children with typical hearing: Effects of length of language access.

Structural Differences of the Semantic Network in Adolescents with Intellectual Disability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About