The Effect of Hearing Loss on Novel Word Learning in Infant- and Adult-Directed Speech.
V Susie Robertson, Deborah von Hapsburg, Jessica S Hay
PMID 28650353WHAT IT FOUND
Children with hearing loss learned new word-object pairs in both infant-directed and adult-directed speech, but less reliably than age-matched normal-hearing children.
Looking patterns suggest infant-directed speech may still support their learning.
Key findings
01Accuracy, the proportion of looking time to the target picture, was above chance in infant-directed speech (62.4%) and adult-directed speech (56.8%) for children with hearing loss, and in infant-directed speech (66.2%) and adult-directed speech (68.6%) for normal-hearing children.
02Across conditions, overall accuracy was 67.4% for normal-hearing children and 59.6% for children with hearing loss, and speech type did not significantly change this overall pattern.
03Looking over time showed children with hearing loss spent proportionately more time looking to the target in infant-directed speech than adult-directed speech, while normal-hearing children showed the opposite pattern.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 16 children with hearing loss and 16 children with normal hearing were analysed, and two children with hearing loss and six normal-hearing children were excluded before analysis. Not every child contributed data to every condition, and reaction time was based on an average of 3 trials for children with hearing loss and 4 trials for children with normal hearing. Children were matched by chronological age, not hearing age, leaving children with hearing loss with about 14 months less hearing experience than their normal-hearing peers. The groups differed greatly in vocabulary size, so poorer word learning in the hearing-loss group may reflect less language experience rather than hearing status alone. The hearing aid and cochlear implant comparisons were small and exploratory, with 10 hearing aid users and 6 cochlear implant users, and some hearing aid users had aided audibility scores below recommended targets. The study tested short laboratory label-object learning, not everyday communication or therapy outcomes.
Declared interests
The supplied text states that no conflicts of interest exist for any of the authors.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the infant-directed speech advantage as proof that a therapy works. The study measured short laboratory word learning, not a treatment outcome, and the hearing aid subgroup result was exploratory with 10 children.