Search

Purpose: Kenett et al. (2013) report that the sematic networks, measured by using an oral semantic fluency task, of children with cochlear implants (CI) are less structured compared to the sematic networks of children with typical hearing (TH). This study aims to evaluate if such differences are only evident if children with CI are compared to children with TH matched on chronological age, or also if they are compared to children with TH matched on hearing age., Method: The performance of a group of children with CI on a verbal fluency task was compared to the performance of a group of chronological-age matched children with TH. Subsequently, computational network analysis was used to compare the semantic network structure of the groups. The same procedure was applied to compare a group of children with CI to a group of hearing-age matched children with TH., Results: The children with CI perform on the same level on an oral semantic verbal fluency task as the children with TH matched on hearing age. There are significant differences in terms of the structure of the semantic network between the groups. The magnitude of these differences is very small and they are non-significant for a proportion of nodes included in the bootstrap analysis. This indicates that there is no true difference between the networks. Hearing age, but not age at implantation was found to be significantly positively correlated with semantic verbal fluency performance for the children with CI., Conclusions: The results from the current study indicate that length of exposure to the tested language is an important factor for the structure of the semantic network and the performance on a semantic verbal fluency task for children with CI. Further studies are needed to explore the role of the accessibility of the language input for the development of semantic networks of children with CI., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Shared parenting among caregivers of different gender is common in the Swedish society. It is unclear if this includes shared contribution for children's language development. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to explore the natural language environment of children who were hard-of-hearing compared to typically hearing controls., Methods: Seventy-two families with children aged 7-35 months participated; 22 children who were hard-of-hearing (Cochlear implants, n=11; Hearing aids, n=11) and 50 controls with typical hearing. The majority of caregivers had higher education background level, especially in the control group. Families conducted a daylong recording with the Language Environment Analysis technology, when both parents were present at home. An Interpreted Time Segmental analysis was performed to extract information about female versus male caregivers quantitative word use., Results: The results showed significant gender differences related to number of adult words, with less male words than female words (p <0.001). Male caregivers of children who were hard-of-hearing contributed with around 27 % of adult words during the recordings while males in the control group contributed with 37 %. There was a larger variation in number of female words in the study group than for controls, especially in mothers of children with cochlear implants., Conclusions: Female caregivers talk significantly more close to young children than male caregivers, and especially in the subgroup of children with cochlear implants. Children who are hard-of-hearing are dependent on a rich language environment, and might be especially vulnerable if male caregivers are less involved as language facilitators. More studies are needed to explore caregiver gender differences, both related to quantitative and qualitative language stimulation., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: Incomplete partition type 3 (IP3) malformation deafness is a rare hereditary cause of congenital or rapid progressive hearing loss. The children present with a severe to profound mixed hearing loss and temporal bone imaging show a typical inner ear malformation classified as IP3. Cochlear implantation is one option of hearing restoration in severe cases. Little is known about other specific difficulties these children might exhibit, for instance possible neurodevelopmental symptoms., Material and Methods: Ten 2; 0 to 9; 6-year-old children with IP3 malformation deafness (nine boys and one girl) with cochlear implants were evaluated with a retrospective chart review in combination with an additional extensive multidisciplinary assessment day. Hearing, language, cognition, and mental ill-health were compared with a control group of ten 1; 6 to 14; 5-year-old children with cochlear implants (seven boys and three girls) with another genetic cause of deafness, mutations in the GJB2 gene., Results: Mutations in POU3F4 were found in nine of the 10 children with IP3 malformation. Children with IP3 malformation deafness had an atypical outcome with low level of speech recognition (especially in noise), executive functioning deficits, delayed or impaired speech as well as atypical lexical-semantic and pragmatic abilities, and exhibited mental ill-health issues. Parents of children with IP3 malformation were more likely to report that they were worried about their child's psychosocial wellbeing. Controls, however, had more age-typical results in all these domains. Eight of 10 children in the experimental group had high nonverbal cognitive ability despite their broad range of neurodevelopmental symptoms., Conclusions: While cochlear implantation is a feasible alternative for children with IP3 malformation deafness, co-occurring neurodevelopmental anomalies, such as attention deficit hyperactivity or developmental language disorder, and mental ill-health issues require an extensive and consistent multidisciplinary team approach during childhood to support their overall habilitation., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Ear & Hearing is published on behalf of the American Auditory Society, by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Aim: Evidence suggests that cochlear implants are beneficial for language development, but there is no consensus about the ideal age for surgery. We investigated how language development and surgical safety were affected by patients' ages., Methods: This study comprised 103 children (52 boys) aged 4.3-16 years who received cochlear implants at 5-29 months at the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, between 2002 and 2013. All showed typical development and were from monolingual homes. Bilateral implants were common (95%). The children were regularly assessed on language understanding, vocabulary and speech recognition by a multi-disciplinary team for 10.0 ± 3.7 (4.7-16.0) years., Results: There were no associations between complications after surgery and the age when children had their first implant. Children implanted at 5-11 months reached an age-equivalent level of language understanding and better vocabulary outcome sooner than subgroups implanted later. Children who had surgery at 12-29 months demonstrated more atypical and delayed language abilities over time. Early implantation, preferably before 9 months, may lead to a more typical trajectory of spoken language development., Conclusion: Our findings showed that cochlear implantation before 9 months was safe. Early implantation may reduce the negative effects of auditory deprivation and promotes more natural and synchronised language development., (© 2019 The Authors. Acta Paediatrica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation Acta Paediatrica.)

Objectives: To compare the results after cochlear implantation achieved by monolingual and bilingual deaf children implanted at our Institution, with the aim of understanding if there are any differences between the two groups and if there is a correlation between the outcomes and some patients' variables., Methods: The study group was composed by 14 bilingual deaf children and the control group by the same number of monolingual children implanted at our Institution. The control group was obtained by matching to each bilingual child a monolingual one with a similar clinical history regarding age at hearing loss diagnosis, age at first hearing-aids fitting and age at CI procedure. Children received a speech perception and linguistic development evaluation through specific structured tests. The linguistic competence of the patients both in mainstream and native language was determined by the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM)., Results: We did not find any statistically significant differences between bilingual and monolingual children in speech perception outcomes. Nevertheless, we obtained different results concerning language skills: bilingual implanted children scored lower at structured language tests, even if the difference was not statistically relevant. Bilingual children scored significantly lower than monolingual ones at the SOLOM scale for linguistic competence., Conclusion: The results reported in the present study show better language skills after cochlear implant in Italian monolingual cases than in bilingual ones. This seems to be related to the condition of bilingualism in Italy, mainly related to immigration, and frequently associated with low socio-economic levels, poor competence in the mainstream language and poor social integration, with a suboptimal exposure to the mainstream language and difficulties in following the rehabilitative program., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) are at an increased risk of speech and language deficits. Nonword repetition (NWR) is a potential predictor of problems with phonology, grammar and lexicon in DHH children. The aim of the present study was to examine repetition of prosodic features and segments in nonwords by DHH children compared to children with normal hearing (NH) and to relate NWR performance to measures of language ability and background variables. In this cross-sectional study, 14 Swedish-speaking children with mild-profound sensorineural hearing loss, aged 4-6 years, and 29 age-matched controls with NH and typical language development participated. The DHH children used cochlear implants (CI), hearing aids or a combination of both. The assessment materials included a prosodically controlled NWR task, as well as tests of phonological production, expressive grammar and receptive vocabulary. The DHH children performed below the children with NH on the repetition of tonal word accents, stress patterns, vowels and consonants, with consonants being hardest, and tonal word accents easiest, to repeat. NWR performance was also correlated with language ability, and to hearing level, in the DHH children. Both prosodic and segmental features of nonwords are problematic for Swedish-speaking DHH children compared to children with NH, but performance on tonal word accent repetition is comparably high. NWR may have potential as a clinically useful tool for identification of children who are in need of speech and language intervention.

Objective: Lexical-semantic ability was investigated among children aged 6-9 years with cochlear implants (CI) and compared to clinical groups of children with language impairment (LI) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as well as to age-matched children with normal hearing (NH). In addition, the influence of age at implantation on lexical-semantic ability was investigated among children with CI., Methods: 97 children divided into four groups participated, CI (n=34), LI (n=12), ASD (n=12), and NH (n=39). A battery of tests, including picture naming, receptive vocabulary and knowledge of semantic features, was used for assessment. A semantic response analysis of the erroneous responses on the picture-naming test was also performed., Results: The group of children with CI exhibited a naming ability comparable to that of the age-matched children with NH, and they also possessed a relevant semantic knowledge of certain words that they were unable to name correctly. Children with CI had a significantly better understanding of words compared to the children with LI and ASD, but a worse understanding than those with NH. The significant differences between groups remained after controlling for age and non-verbal cognitive ability., Conclusions: The children with CI demonstrated lexical-semantic abilities comparable to age-matched children with NH, while children with LI and ASD had a more atypical lexical-semantic profile and poorer sizes of expressive and receptive vocabularies. Dissimilar causes of neurodevelopmental processes seemingly affected lexical-semantic abilities in different ways in the clinical groups., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)