As a group, children with cochlear implants do not show equivalent vocabulary knowledge to age-matched peers with normal hearing. Deficits in rapid word learning may contribute to the low vocabulary knowledge in children with cochlear implants. In rapid word learning tasks, children with cochlear implants as a group perform worse than children of the same age with normal hearing.
Maternal input may be a possible contributing factor to outcomes for children with cochlear implants. Children with cochlear implants start learning spoken language at a later age than their normal-hearing peers. Research to date has primarily focused on the auditory characteristics of maternal input in children with cochlear implants.
If child-directed speech facilitates word learning in children with normal hearing, it should play a crucial role for children with cochlear implants. Mothers of children with cochlear implants use features of child-directed speech that match the child's listening experience compared to his or her chronological age. Features of child-directed speech (high pre-boundary pitch and long vowel duration) were present in children with and without cochlear implants.
Further investigation of combined auditory and visual cues available to children with cochlear implants is warranted.
SYNCHRONY OF MATERNAL AUDITORY AND VISUAL CUES TO CHILDREN WITH AND WITHOUT COCHLEAR IMPLANTS
Auditory and visual cues and the manner in which they are delivered may influence rapid word learning outcomes in children with cochlear implants. Mothers of children with cochlear implants typically provide their children with auditory cues consistent with child-directed speech (eg, high volume, short words, and long pauses) (Bergeson, Miller, & McCune, 2006; Kondaurova & Bergeson, 2011). Unfortunately, the literature to date does not describe the provision of child-directed movements in children with a cochlear implant.
The majority of children with hearing loss are born to parents who have normal hearing (Mitchell & Karchmer, 2004). Specifically, this study examined maternal auditory and visual cues about word references available to children with cochlear implants compared to those available to children with normal hearing matched for chronological age and children matched for vocabulary level. The first research question addressed whether mothers of children with cochlear implants provide a different proportion of converging auditory and visual cues to novel nouns than mothers of children matched for chronological age or mothers of children matched for vocabulary size.
Mothers of children with a cochlear implant provided a nonsignificantly different proportion of convergent signs than older mothers. The second research question asked whether mothers of children with cochlear implants provided a different proportion of different auditory and visual cues than mothers of children matched for chronological age and mothers of children matched for vocabulary size. Further linear contrasts using adjusted means showed that mothers of children with cochlear implants provided a greater proportion.
The third research question compared the proportions of auditory-only cues provided by mothers of children with cochlear implants versus mothers of children with normal hearing, matched for age and vocabulary size. However, it is possible that mothers of children with hearing loss and mothers of children with normal hearing (both in terms of age and vocabulary) show a similar total number of convergent auditory-visual signals. The results of this study indicate that mothers provide auditory-visual input to children with cochlear implants in a way that they did not.
This study shows that mothers of children with cochlear implants provide proportions of converging and divergent signals that are similar to the proportions of mothers of children matched for chronological age. Mothers of children matched for vocabulary size, on the other hand, provided a higher proportion of convergent auditory-visual cues and a lower proportion of divergent cues than mothers of children with cochlear implants. The finding that mothers of children with cochlear implants provide auditory-visual signals ("multimodal mothers") consistent with those of a child.
Bergeson and colleagues (2006) found that mothers provide child-directed acoustic signals to children with cochlear implants in the same way as mothers of children matched for language level. Similarly, this study found that mothers of children with cochlear implants use shorter utterances than mothers of chronologically age-matched children, similar to mothers of vocabulary-matched children.
WORD-LEARNING PERFORMANCE OF CHILDREN WITH AND WITHOUT COCHLEAR IMPLANTS GIVEN SYNCHRONOUS AND
Children with cochlear implants learn fewer words than children with normal hearing when presented with synchronous auditory-visual cues. This study compared the word learning performance of children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing when children were provided with synchronous and asynchronous auditory and visual temporal cues about word referents. The second research question compared the performance of children with cochlear implants to children with normal hearing given synchronous auditory and visual information.
The third research question compared the performance of children with cochlear implants with children with normal hearing, given asynchronous auditory and visual information. The pattern of rapid word learning performance of children with cochlear implants differed from that of children with normal hearing. Children with cochlear implants learned fewer words than children with normal hearing, chronologically age-wise in terms of auditory and visual cues.
Within-group differences revealed different response patterns for children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing. Alternatively, the chance-level performance of children with cochlear implants may reflect a need for more input to quickly learn words. The influence of working memory on lexical and grammatical development in children with cochlear implants.
The second study evaluated the effects of synchronous (a converging signal) and asynchronous (a divergent signal) auditory-visual cues on the word learning performance of children with cochlear implants and children with chronological age-matched normal hearing. Thus, maternal input represents a possible factor contributing to the slow lexical growth of children with cochlear implants. Although children with normal hearing show evidence of rapid word learning before the age of one, children with cochlear implants may need to.
However, in a word learning task, children with cochlear implants did not use auditory-visual cues to successfully learn new words. Maternal auditory and visual cues about word referents represent a potential environmental factor contributing to the lexical outcomes of children with cochlear implants. Mothers of children with cochlear implants provide auditory and visual cues comparable to those given to children with chronological age-matched normal hearing.
Mothers of normal-hearing children matched for vocabulary size, however, provided a greater number of converging auditory and visual cues than mothers of children with cochlear implants. The impact of working memory on lexical and grammatical development in children with cochlear implants.
CODING MANUAL
Also, don't include nouns that are part of rote phrases (eg, what's the job?, good job). Once all the new names have been identified, the names should be compiled into a list in an Excel spreadsheet. After creating this list, all the words in the excel file should be randomized and presented to the parent via phone call.
The parent should be asked if they believe the child understands the listed words or not. When the mother confirms that the word in the list is new, this should be marked on the excel sheet. Synchronous Tagging: Synchronous tagging occurs when an adult tags an object while simultaneously moving, pointing (as in pointing), or holding the object.
Follow-up tagging: Follow-up tagging occurs when an adult tags an object that a child is already looking at or playing with (within 400 milliseconds of the child's action). Asynchronous tagging: Asynchronous tagging occurs when an adult tags an object and then, after 400 milliseconds, manipulates or indicates the object. If a parent picks up an object that a child is looking at and then shakes and feels that object, it should be coded as [sync].
When a child looks at an object other than the one the parent is shaking, . the parent. For example, if a parent peels a banana while staring at a spoon that the child is looking at and labeling it, this should be labeled [fin] because both the gaze and subsequent labeling indicate the spoon, even though the adult is the spoon peeling. banana. Example: If a parent holds and moves an object while tagging another, and then picks up the tagged object, the event should be coded as [conf].
If divergent cues and auditory-only cues are used in an event, the divergent cue must be encoded according to predictions made by intrasensory redundancy. If sequential tagging is used in conjunction with conflicting or asynchronous tagging, the sequential hint must be encoded. If adult synchronous eye gaze is used in conjunction with conflicting or asynchronous labeling, the divergent signal must be encoded.
