Spoken language and everyday functioning in 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants

Cupples, Linda; Ching, Teresa Y. C.; Button, Laura; Seeto, Mark; Zhang, Vicky; Whitfield, Jessica; Gunnourie, Miriam; Martin, Louise; Marnane, Vivienne

doi:10.1080/14992027.2017.1370140

Cited by 91 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(124 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, a large proportion of the cohort used both spoken and sign language to communicate. It is unclear whether these factors influenced results, given that better literacy outcomes have previously been associated with early cochlear implantation (Ching, Dillon, Leigh & Cupples, 2017;Johnson & Goswami, 2010) and use of spoken language to communicate (Cupples et al, 2017;Johnson & Goswami, 2010;O'Donoghue, Nikolopoulos & Archbold, 2000). The present study therefore narrows the focus of investigation to a comparatively homogeneous CI cohort, whose members all received their implants earlier, used spoken communication, and were exposed to early auditory-verbal therapy (AVT) intervention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Since communication mode has previously been found to influence literacy outcomes (see Section 1.5.2; Cupples et al, 2017;Johnson & Goswami, 2010;O'Donoghue, Nikopoulos & Archbold, 2000), the skills of spoken language users may be better represented when analysed in isolation.…”

Section: Literacy Development In Children With Cochlear Implants Sinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There exists a large body of literature to suggest that early speech and language development is influenced by age at cochlear implantation (Colletti, Mandalá, Zoccante, Shannon & Colletti, 2011;Cupples et al, 2017;Dettman et al, 2016;Leigh, Dettman & Briggs, 2013;Tait et al, 2007;Tomblin, Baker, Spencer, Zhang & Gantz, 2005). Dettman and colleagues (2016) conducted an extensive study, involving over 400 children with CIs.…”

Section: Factors Influencing Literacy Success In Children With Hearinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As well as being homogeneous in the type of early intervention received, participants in our CI group were also all spoken communicators and had 'normal' nonverbal reasoning skills. These individual factors have been found in past studies to influence language and literacy outcomes (Cupples et al, 2017;Geers, 2003;Harris & Beech, 1998), so were intentionally controlled to reduce the effects of potentially confounding variables. As such, the present results are not necessarily generalisable to children with hearing loss who do not meet the same criteria.…”

Section: Reading and Language In Beginning Readers With Cochlear Implmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While these findings, as well as those reported by Apel and Masterson (2015), suggest that children with CIs demonstrate more spelling difficulties relative to their peers, it may be noted that both studies' cohorts consisted of individuals from varied linguistic backgrounds. Given that communication mode has been found to influence literacy outcomes in children with hearing loss (Cupples et al, 2017;Johnson & Goswami, 2010;O'Donoghue, Nikopoulos & Archbold, 2000), the skills of spoken language users may be better represented when analysed separately from sign language users.…”

Section: Spelling Outcomes In Children With Cochlear Implants a Highmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Literacy development in children with cochlear implants

Bell¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In general, school-age children with significant hearing loss demonstrate poorer literacy skills than their typically hearing (TH) peers. However, it is often difficult to infer from research findings which individual factors contribute to overall learning outcomes, given the high degree of heterogeneity in the hearing-impaired population. Since the development of any specialised intervention is based on evidence about the strengths and weaknesses of the targeted group, gaps in research arising from population variability have clinical and educational significance. Of the broader population of children who are deaf and hard of hearing, the research presented in this thesis pertains to a homogeneous group of beginning readers with significant bilateral hearing loss, who use cochlear implants (CIs) and communicate via solely spoken language. A psycholinguistic approach, founded on existing theoretical models, informed the collection and analysis of research findings in this thesis, which has thus allowed for specific interpretations as to the skills underlying reading and writing outcomes in children with CIs. iii Declaration by author This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis. I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award. I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Literacy Development In Children With Cochlear Implants Sinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Factors Influencing Literacy Success In Children With Hearinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reading and Language In Beginning Readers With Cochlear Implmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Spelling Outcomes In Children With Cochlear Implants a Highmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Literacy development in children with cochlear implants

Bell¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Hearing Loss and Cochlear Implants

Morris¹,

Velde²

2021

The Handbook of Language and Speech Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improvement in quality of life comparing noninvasive versus invasive hearing rehabilitation in children

Urík

Šikolová

Hošnová

et al. 2023

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The young population requires early rehabilitation of their hearing loss for normal cognitive, auditive hence social development. All of which, in turn, may have an impact on quality of life (QoL). This study aims to evaluate QoL between two different bone conduction (BC) hearing devices: a noninvasive adhesive hearing aid (Adhear [ADH]) vs. an active transcutaneous implant (Bonebridge [BB]). Methods This study composed of 12 BB and 15 ADH users. Pure tone as well as speech in noise and quiet measurements were evaluated and compared to the Assessment in QoL questionnaire (AQoL‐6d). Results Freefield results showed significant improvements for both devices compared to the unaided condition ( p < .0001). Emphasis needs to be drawn on the different unaided level of conductive hearing loss as well as the indication range for both evaluated device groups: the ADH subjects exhibited a mean BC value of 9.50 ± 7.96 dB HL (the indication range up to 25 dB) and the BB subjects a mean of 23.33 ± 25.66 dB HL (the indication range up to 45 dB). Speech perception in quiet and in noise was significantly improved ( p < .05; p < .001, respectively). QoL was significantly improved for both treatments ( p < .05) but was not different among the devices, and the values were similar to their normal hearing, age, and sex‐matched control group. High correlations were found between QoL utility scores and improved PTA4 in the aided condition ( r 2 = .8839 and .7810 for BB and ADH, respectively). Conclusion Our results show that both devices offer significant beneficial audiological rehabilitations with significantly increased QoL. However, the underlying condition and the unaided degree of hearing loss, hence the required higher stimulation must be the deciding factor when opting for a hearing device, and this should be independent of age. Level of evidence 2c.

show abstract

Spoken language and everyday functioning in 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants

Abstract: The findings provide strong evidence for the benefits of early HA fitting and early CI for improving children's outcomes.

Cited by 91 publications

References 54 publications

Literacy development in children with cochlear implants

Literacy development in children with cochlear implants

Hearing Loss and Cochlear Implants

Improvement in quality of life comparing noninvasive versus invasive hearing rehabilitation in children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About