4.5 Article

Spoken Word Recognition in Toddlers Who Use Cochlear Implants

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 52, Issue 6, Pages 1390-1400

Publisher

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0154)

Keywords

cochlear implants; spoken word recognition; children

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [P30 HD003352, R01HD37466, R01 HD037466, P30HD03352] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01DC008365, F32 DC008452, F32DC008452, R01 DC008365, R01 DC008365-01A2, R21DC006642] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the time course of spoken word recognition in 2-year-old children who use cochlear implants (CIs) in quiet and in the presence of speech competitors. Method: Children who use CIs and age-matched peers with normal acoustic hearing listened to familiar auditory labels, in quiet or in the presence of speech competitors, while their eye movements to target objects were digitally recorded. Word recognition performance was quantified by measuring each child's reaction time (i.e., the latency between the spoken auditory label and the first look at the target object) and accuracy (i.e., the amount of time that children looked at target objects within 367 ms to 2,000 ms after the label onset). Results: Children with CIs were less accurate and took longer to fixate target objects than did age-matched children without hearing loss. Both groups of children showed reduced performance in the presence of the speech competitors, although many children continued to recognize labels at above-chance levels. Conclusion: The results suggest that the unique auditory experience of young CI users slows the time course of spoken word recognition abilities. In addition, real-world listening environments may slow language processing in young language learners, regardless of their hearing status.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available