PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021; 25(03): e407-e412
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716570
Original Research

Receptive and Expressive Language in Hindi Speaking Children with Postcochlear Implantation at 6-Month Intervals

Vijay Kumar 
1   Department of Audiology & Speech Language Pathology, Amity University Gurgaon, Haryana, India
2   Amity Institute of Neuropsychology & Neurosceience, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Rachna Mehta 
2   Amity Institute of Neuropsychology & Neurosceience, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
  Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Individual variability in the language outcomes of children with cochlear implantation (CI) is a major concern. In CI rehabilitation, there is lack of a protocol regarding uniform post-CI language assessment interval duration, which can ensure better understanding of the trajectory of language growth as well as optimize language outcomes by providing feedback in fine tuning the language intervention program.

Objective To evaluate the receptive and expressive language in Hindi speaking children with up to 2 years of CI experience using revised receptive-expressive emergent language test-3ed. (REELT-3) at 6 months intervals and to compare it with that of children with normal hearing (NH).

Methods The present study included 192 children divided in 2 groups, 96 children with CI (15.8 ± 6.7 months), and 96 age-matched children with NH (22.3 ± 7.9 months). A cross-sectional, prospective study design was used to measure the language ability score (LAS) at an interval of 6 months from the time of implantation (TIA), which is 0 to 6 months, 7 to 12 months, 13 to 18 months, and 19 to 24 months of CI usage.

Results The two-way analysis of variance revealed that the LAS after 18 months of CI usage was similar to (F (3, 92) = 8.63, p = 0.19, ηp2 = 0.028) that of the children with NH. However, other demographic factors, for instance, gender (F (3, 92) = 1.73, p = 0.505, ηp2 = 0.002), parent's education, (F (3, 92) = 2.05, p = 0.937, ηp2 = 0.031), and financial background (F (3, 92) = 2.49, p = 0.351, ηp2 = 0.076) had no major impact on language.

Conclusion Eighteen months of CI usage duration can potentially stimulate receptive and expressive language up to age-matched children with NH. A protocol of periodic assessment of language, at least of 6 months, may be developed to optimize language outcomes.

Keywords

cochlear Implantation - receptive language - expressive language - language assessment - REELT-3


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 27. April 2020

Angenommen: 21. Juli 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
30. September 2020

© 2020. Fundação Otorrinolaringologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Caselli MC, Rinaldi P, Varuzza C, Giuliani A, Burdo S. Cochlear implant in the second year of life: lexical and grammatical outcomes. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012; 55 (02) 382-394
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG, Harris MS, Moberly AC. Three challenges for future research on cochlear implants. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 3 (04) 240-254
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Baldassari CM, Schmidt C, Schubert CM, Srinivasan P, Dodson KM, Sismanis A. Receptive language outcomes in children after cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 140 (01) 114-119
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Levitt H, McGarr N, Geffner D. Development of language and communication skills in hearing-impaired children. Introduction. ASHA Monogr 1987; (26) 1-8
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Svirsky MA, Teoh S-W, Neuburger H. Development of language and speech perception in congenitally, profoundly deaf children as a function of age at cochlear implantation. Audiol Neurotol 2004; 9 (04) 224-233
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Bradham T, Jones J. Cochlear implant candidacy in the United States: prevalence in children 12 months to 6 years of age. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 72 (07) 1023-1028
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Cruz I, Quittner AL, Marker C, DesJardin JL, Team CI. CDaCI Investigative Team. Identification of effective strategies to promote language in deaf children with cochlear implants. Child Dev 2013; 84 (02) 543-559
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Tomblin JB, Barker BA, Spencer LJ, Zhang X, Gantz BJ. The effect of age at cochlear implant initial stimulation on expressive language growth in infants and toddlers. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48 (04) 853-867
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Brito Rd, Bittencourt AG, Tsuji RK, Magnan J, Bento RF. Cochlear implantation through the middle fossa: an anatomic study for a novel technique. Acta Otolaryngol 2013; 133 (09) 905-909
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Leigh J, Dettman S, Dowell R, Briggs R. Communication development in children who receive a cochlear implant by 12 months of age. Otol Neurotol 2013; 34 (03) 443-450
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Geers AE. Speech, language, and reading skills after early cochlear implantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (05) 634-638
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Nicholas JG, Geers AE. Will they catch up? The role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe to profound hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50 (04) 1048-1062
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Ruben RJ. Language development in the pediatric cochlear implant patient. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2018; 3 (03) 209-213
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Connor CM, Craig HK, Raudenbush SW, Heavner K, Zwolan TA. The age at which young deaf children receive cochlear implants and their vocabulary and speech-production growth: is there an added value for early implantation?. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (06) 628-644
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Miyamoto RT, Hay-McCutcheon MJ, Kirk KI, Houston DM, Bergeson-Dana T. Language skills of profoundly deaf children who received cochlear implants under 12 months of age: a preliminary study. Acta Otolaryngol 2008; 128 (04) 373-377
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Geers AE, Sedey AL. Language and verbal reasoning skills in adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (01) 39S-48S
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Geers AE. Factors Affecting the Development of Speech, Language, and Literacy in Children With Early Cochlear Implantation. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2002; 33 (03) 172-183
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Kumar V, Mehta R. Adaptation and validation of receptive expressive emergent Language Test-3: Evidence from Hindi speaking children with cochlear implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 132: 109891
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Dayal V. Incorporation: Morpho-syntactic vs. semantic considerations. The syntax and semantics of pseudo-incorporation: Brill; 2015: 47-87
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Houston DM, Miyamoto RT. Effects of early auditory experience on word learning and speech perception in deaf children with cochlear implants: implications for sensitive periods of language development. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (08) 1248-1253
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Bzoch KR, League R, Brown VL. Receptive-expressive Emergent Language Test: Examiner's Manual: Pro-ed. 2003
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Clark JH, Wang N-Y, Riley AW. CDaCI Investigative Team. et al. Timing of cochlear implantation and parents' global ratings of children's health and development. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (04) 545-552
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Ertmer DJ, Young NM, Nathani S. Profiles of vocal development in young cochlear implant recipients. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50 (02) 393-407
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RV. Activity-dependent developmental plasticity of the auditory brain stem in children who use cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2003; 24 (06) 485-500
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ. A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (06) 532-539
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Locke JL. A theory of neurolinguistic development. Brain Lang 1997; 58 (02) 265-326
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Bates E. Language and the infant brain. J Commun Disord 1999; 32 (04) 195-205
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar