4.5 Article

Language not auditory experience is related to parent-reported executive functioning in preschool-aged deaf and hard-of-hearing children

Journal

CHILD DEVELOPMENT
Volume 93, Issue 1, Pages 209-224

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13677

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [1553589]
  2. Connecticut Institute for the Brain and Cognitive Sciences
  3. University of Connecticut PCLB Psychological Sciences
  4. Division Of Human Resource Development
  5. Direct For Education and Human Resources [1553589] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research has shown that early exposure to language has a positive impact on the development of executive functioning in children, while early exposure to auditory input seems to have little significant effect. Few cases of executive dysfunction were observed, suggesting that overall, deaf and hard-of-hearing children do not show significant differences in executive functioning compared to typically hearing children.
Much research has found disrupted executive functioning (EF) in deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children; while some theories emphasize the role of auditory deprivation, others posit delayed language experience as the primary cause. This study investigated the role of language and auditory experience in parent-reported EF for 123 preschool-aged children (M-age = 60.1 months, 53.7% female, 84.6% White). Comparisons between DHH and typically hearing children exposed to language from birth (spoken or signed) showed no significant differences in EF despite drastic differences in auditory input. Linear models demonstrated that earlier language exposure predicted better EF (beta = .061-.341), while earlier auditory exposure did not. Few participants exhibited clinically significant executive dysfunction. Results support theories positing that language, not auditory experience, scaffolds EF development.

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