4.0 Article

Babbling and consonant production in children with hearing impairment who use hearing aids or cochlear implants - a pilot study

期刊

LOGOPEDICS PHONIATRICS VOCOLOGY
卷 45, 期 4, 页码 172-180

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14015439.2019.1695929

关键词

Hearing loss; hearing age; cochlear implants; hearing aids; canonical babbling; consonant production

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate early auditory prerequisites in relation to the use of canonical babbling (CB) and early consonant production in a heterogeneous group of children with hearing impairment (HI) and in comparison to controls with normal hearing (NH). Methods: Five children with unilateral or bilateral HI who used hearing aids (HA) (0;9-1;7 years) and six children with cochlear implants (CI) (0;10-2;0 years) were compared to data from 22 children with NH (0;10-1;6 years). Hearing age, type of HI and daily use of hearing technology (hours) was investigated in relation to CB ratio and consonant production. Analysis of babbling from video recordings during verbal interaction between a parent and child was independently performed by two observers. Intra- and inter-agreement were calculated. Results: Children with HI used less CB compared to children with NH. Less CB utterances and occurrences of dental/alveolar stops were found in children with HA who had a hearing age of 5 months and who used their hearing technology 5 h per day. The children with CI reached an expected CB ratio and consonant production after 8.5 months with daily fulltime use of CI. Conclusions: Even a mild hearing loss in early childhood may affect and delay the onset of important linguistic milestones like canonical babbling and consonant production. It was indicated that children with CI or HA might receive different attention and intervention services. Longer hearing age and full-time use of hearing technology may influence positively on CB ratio and consonant production in children with HI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据