Szagun and Stumper
(2012)(
10
10 Szagun G, Stumper B. Age or experience? The influence of age at implantation and social and linguistic environment on language development in children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55(6):1640-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0119). PMid:22490622.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012...
)
Germany and United Kingdom
|
25 chdn D or CIU, in ST;
with 12 ⊗ and 13☒ ;
AAI 11 months;
CD;
4 chdn with BCI. |
Longitudinal |
Examine the influence of age at receiving implant and socio-environmental factors in the linguistic progress of children who received CI between 6 months and 3.5 years. |
Recording of spontaneous speech in interaction with the parents + questionnaire ① with the parents. |
The chdn exhibited considerable vocabulary and grammatical growth over time. In chdn receiving implants up to 24m, progress was + more accentuated earlier, the chdn receiving implants after made it later. Higher levels of maternal schooling were associated with more rapid linguistic progress; age at the time of the implant was not. |
A sensitive period (up to 24m) for language learning, the maternal-infant language environment contributes more crucially to their linguistic progress than age at the time of implant. |
Iwasaki et al. (2012)(
11
11 Iwasaki S, Nishio S, Moteki H, Takumi Y, Fukushima K, Kasai N, et al. Language development in Japanese children who receive cochlear implant and/or hearing aid. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(3):433-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.12.027. PMid:22281374.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2011....
)
Japan
|
190 children, with 60 (31.6%) UCIU, 128 (67.4%) were CIU and PHA and 2 (1.1%) were BCIU. |
Longitudinal |
Investigate a large variety of factors that influence hearing, speech, and lgg development with CI. |
Evaluation set for language development in Japanese children with hearing deficiencies (ALADJIN). |
The maximum speech distinction score, and speech intelligibility classification among CI users was significantly (p <0.01) better than among the UCIU and PHA. The STA and TQAID scores among UCI and PHA were significantly (p <0.05) better than those for UCIU. A high correlation (r=0.52) was found between the CI age and highest distinctive speech scores. The speech and lgg test scores among chdn receiving implants before 24m have been better than those for chdn receiving implants after 24m. |
The CI was effective for the development of language in HD Japanese chdn and early CI was more effective for the vocabulary and syntax production results. |
Ostojić et al.
(2011)(
12
12 Ostojić S, Djoković S, Dimić N, Mikić B. Cochlear implant-speech and language development in deaf and hard of hearing children following implantation. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2011;68(4):349-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/VSP1104349O. PMid:21627020.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/VSP1104349O...
)
Serbia
|
30 chdn from 4 to 7y, split into three groups: E1 - 10 D chdn with CIU; E2 – 10 D chdn with PHA and C 10 NH chdn, all the same age. All the D chdn had severe and extensive CD and are in ST. |
Cros-sectional |
Evaluate the influence of improved auditory perception due to CI in abstract word comprehension in chdn, in comparison with chdn with HD with PHA and chdn with NH. |
Vocabulary test ② |
The general results for the whole test (100 words) showed a significant difference in favor of NH in comparison with chdn with HD. The chld with NH successfully described or defined 77.93% of a total of 100 words. The success rate for the chdn with CI was 26.87% and for chdn with PHA was 20.23%. |
Abstract Word tests showed a SS difference between the CI and the chdn with PHA (Mann Whitney U test, p=0.019) which implies a considerable advantage of CI over PHA in relation to successful speech development among pre-lingual deaf children. |
Chramm et al. (2010)(
6
6 Chramm B, Bohnert A, Keilmann A. Auditory, speech and language development in young children with cochlear implants compared with children with normal hearing. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74(7):812-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.04.008. PMid:20452685.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010....
)
Germany
|
5 chdn with NH and 5 with NSD. All the chdn in the 2nd group were observed for 36 months after the first CI installation. The chdn from the CI group are CD and had received PHA before receiving BCI. |
Longitudinal |
This study had two aims: (1) to document the auditory and lexical development of D chdn who received the 1st CI at 16m and the second CI at 31m and (2) compare the results for these chdn with those of chdn with NH. |
The auditory development of the CI group was documented every 3m until 2y (auditory age) and for the group with normal hearing, in chronological age. LEAQ + Elfra-1. |
In both groups, the chdn exhibited individual auditory and language development patterns. The chdn with CI developed in a different way regarding the amount of receptive and expressive vocabulary in comparison with the NH group. 3 children in the CI group needed almost 6 months to make progress in speech development that was consistent with what would be expected for their chronological age. In general, the receptive and expressive development in all the children in the group with implants increased with time of hearing. |
Early identification and early implant are advisable to give children with neurosensory hearing loss a realistic chance of satisfactorily developing receptive and expressive vocabulary and also developing phonological, morphological, and syntax abilities for school life in a stable way. |
Wie (2010)(
13
13 Wie O. Language development in children after receiving bilateral cochlear implants between 5 and 18 months. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74(11):1258-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.07.026. PMid:20800293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010....
)
Norway
|
42 children: 21 UCI and 21 with NH, monitored in pairs in accordance with sex and chronological age. |
Longitudinal |
Examine the development of receptive and expressive language in chdn who received SBCI between 5 and 18m, and compare the results with language development in chronological order in chdn of the same age with NH. |
The data was collected post CI surgery in check-ups (3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48m). LittlEARS questionnaire + Mullen Early Learning Scale + Minnesota Infant Development Inventory. |
Cochlear auditory function of UCI in accordance with LittlEARS was comparable to the chdn with NH within 9 months post-implant. The average scores after 9 and 12 months were 31 and 33, respectively, in PLD, against 31 and 34 in the chdn with NH. Receptive and expressive language scores for chdn show that after 12-48 months with CI, 81% had receptive language abilities within the normal parameters and 57% had expressive language abilities within the normal parameters. The number of chdn who scored within the normal range increased with CI experience. |
This study showed the ability of PLD chdn to develop complex expressive and receptive spoken language after early BCI appearing promising. Most of the chdn developed language abilities at a faster rhythm than their auditory ages would suggest and over time achieved receptive and expressive language abilities within the normal parameters. |
Damen et al.
(2006)(
14
14 Damen G, Van Den Oever-Goltstein M, Langereis M, Chute P, Mylanus E. Classroom performance of children with cochlear implants in mainstream education. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2006;115(7):542-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000348940611500709. PMid:16900809.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00034894061150...
)
United States of America
|
32 UCI chdn, in regular education, with CD or PLD + 37 with NH.
20 children were CD, 12 PLD (<3 years old). |
Cross-sectional |
Compare the classroom performance of chdn with CI with that of their peers with NH in regular education. |
Teachers filled out 2 questionnaires: AMP and SIFTER. |
The UCI chdn scored above average in AMP and sufficiently well in all areas, except in that of communication in the SIFTER questionnaire. Class rankings did not differ significantly between pupils with or without CI. In general, the NH group exceeded the UCI group. Classroom performance for chdn with CI was negatively correlated with time of deafness and age at the time of implant. All the longitudinal audiological data for the UCI children exhibited an improvement in speech recognition in open set. |
Although the results are encouraging, the CI group scored significantly lower than their peers with normal hearing in most areas of the questionnaire, both for the AMP and the SIFTER. The most important variables for the outcome of this study were implant age and time of deafness. |
Svirsky et al.
(2000)(
15
15 Svirsky M, Robbins A, Kirk K, Pisoni D, Miyamoto R. Language development in profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychol Sci Mar. 2000;11(2):153-8. PMid:11273423.
)
United States of America
|
70 chdn were evaluated around 4m before receiving their CI and again 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30m after implant. |
Cross-sectional |
Compare the lgg development of chdn with PLD UCI and predict language development of these chdn if they had not received the implants. Finally, the measured lgg development from the sample of chdn with CI was compared with the standards obtained for chdn with NH. |
RDLS + PBK Scale |
The lgg development rate after receiving implants exceeded the expectations for D chdn without implants (p <.001), and was similar to that for chdn with NH. |
Despite a large amount of individual variability, the best performers in the group with implants appear to be developing an oral linguistic system, based primarily on the auditory entrance, obtained from a CI. |
Thumbnail
