Variability in Quantity and Quality of Early Linguistic Experience in Children With Cochlear Implants: Evidence from Analysis of Natural Auditory Environments.
Meisam K Arjmandi, Derek Houston, Laura C Dilley
PMID 34611118WHAT IT FOUND
In 14 children with cochlear implants, home speech varied widely.
Some heard less than fifty percent of words directed to them, others more than fifty percent. Language input did not predict language scores at 6 months.
Key findings
01The average estimated total words per day was 25,134, with a spread of 9,267 across children.
02The proportion of total words that were child-directed ranged from 0.16 to 0.74.
03None of the language input measures showed statistically significant associations with language scores.
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
Fourteen children is a small sample. Language outcomes were available for only 13 children, and they were measured at 6 months post-implantation. The sample was heterogeneous: some children had bimodal devices, and four had additional diagnoses. Recording counts were unequal: some children had four recordings, while others had only one. Only 5% of each daylong recording was sampled. The study analyzed audio only, so it could not measure visual language exposure. Extrapolations over years assume the per-day estimates hold, so those year-long estimates should be read cautiously. The null associations with language scores may reflect limited sample size and short time after implantation.
Declared interests
The supplied text does not include a conflicts-of-interest declaration. The publication types shown are NIH extramural and non-U.S. government research support.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that more child-directed speech improves language outcomes in children with cochlear implants. The study did not test an intervention, and language input did not predict language scores at 6 months post-implantation.