4.5 Article

Vocabulary Facilitates Speech Perception in Children With Hearing Aids

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 60, Issue 8, Pages 2281-2296

Publisher

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-H-16-0086

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [5R01DC013591- 02]
  2. [T35 DC008757]
  3. [P30 DC004662]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We examined the effects of vocabulary, lexical characteristics (age of acquisition and phonotactic probability), and auditory access (aided audibility and daily hearing aid [HA] use) on speech perception skills in children with HAs. Method: Participants included 24 children with HAs and 25 children with normal hearing (NH), ages 5-12 years. Groups were matched on age, expressive and receptive vocabulary, articulation, and nonverbal working memory. Participants repeated monosyllabic words and nonwords in noise. Stimuli varied on age of acquisition, lexical frequency, and phonotactic probability. Performance in each condition was measured by the signal-to-noise ratio at which the child could accurately repeat 50% of the stimuli. Results: Children from both groups with larger vocabularies showed better performance than children with smaller vocabularies on nonwords and late-acquired words but not early-acquired words. Overall, children with HAs showed poorer performance than children with NH. Auditory access was not associated with speech perception for the children with HAs. Conclusions: Children with HAs show deficits in sensitivity to phonological structure but appear to take advantage of vocabulary skills to support speech perception in the same way as children with NH. Further investigation is needed to understand the causes of the gap that exists between the overall speech perception abilities of children with HAs and children with NH.

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