The relationship between reasoning and language ability: comparing children with cochlear implants and children with typical hearing

Purpose Language has been suggested to play a facilitating role for analogical reasoning tasks, especially for those with high complexity. This study aims to evaluate if differences in analogical reasoning ability between children with cochlear implants (CI) and children with typical hearing (TH) might be explained by differences in language ability. Methods The analogical reasoning ability (verbal; non-verbal; complex non-verbal: high relational integration demand) of children with CI (N = 15, mean age = 6;7) was compared to two groups of children with TH: age and language matched (TH-A+L, N = 23, mean age = 6;5), and age matched (TH-A, N = 23, mean age = 6;5). Results Children with CI were found to perform comparable to Group TH-A+L on non-verbal reasoning tasks but significantly more poorly on a verbal analogical reasoning task. Children with CI were found to perform significantly more poorly on both the non-verbal analogical reasoning task with high relational integration demand and on the verbal analogical reasoning task compared to Group TH-A. For the non-verbal analogical reasoning task with lower relational integration demand only a tendency for a difference between group CI and Group TH-A was found. Conclusions The results suggest that verbal strategies are influencing the performance on the non-verbal analogical reasoning tasks with a higher relational integration demand. The possible reasons for this are discussed. The verbal analogical reasoning task used in the current study partly measured lexical access. Differences between the children with CI and both groups of children with TH might therefore be explained by differences in expressive vocabulary skills.

Automated summary

This study aimed to evaluate the differences in analogical reasoning ability between children with cochlear implants (CI) and children with typical hearing (TH), and to explore whether these differences could be explained by differences in language ability. The results showed that children with CI performed comparable to children with TH on non-verbal reasoning tasks but significantly worse on verbal analogical reasoning tasks. This suggests that verbal strategies may influence the performance of children with CI on non-verbal analogical reasoning tasks with high relational integration demand.