Language and Verbal Reasoning Skills in Adolescents With 10 or More Years of Cochlear Implant Experience
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objectives: The purpose of this study is to identify factors predictive of successful English language outcomes in adolescents who received a cochlear implant (CI) between 2 and 5 yrs of age. Design: All 112 participants had been part of a previous study examining English language outcomes at the age of 8 and 9 yrs with CIs. The participants were given a battery of language and verbal reasoning tests in their preferred communication mode along with measures of working memory (digit span) and verbal rehearsal speed (sentence repetition duration). The degree to which students' language performance was enhanced when sign was added to spoken language was estimated at both test sessions. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to document factors contributing to overall language outcomes. Results: A substantial proportion of the adolescents obtained test scores within or above 1SD compared with hearing age-mates in the tests' normative samples: 71% on a verbal intelligence test, 68% on a measure of language content, 71% on receptive vocabulary, and 74% on expressive vocabulary. Improvement in verbal intelligence scores over an 8-yr interval exceeded expectation based on age-mates in the test's normative sample. Better English language outcomes were associated with shorter duration of deafness before cochlear implantation, higher nonverbal intelligence, higher family socioeconomic status, longer digit spans, and faster verbal rehearsal speed as measured by sentence repetition rate. Students whose current receptive vocabulary scores were not enhanced by the addition of signs also exhibited higher English language scores than those without sign enhancement; however, sign enhancement demonstrated in the elementary school years was not predictive of later high-school language skills. Conclusions: Results of this study support the provision of CIs to children at the youngest age possible. In addition, it highlights the substantial role that cognition plays in later language outcomes. Although the students' use of sign to enhance language skills during the elementary years does not appear to have a negative impact on later language skills, students who continue to rely on sign to improve their vocabulary comprehension into high school typically exhibit poorer English language outcomes than students whose spoken language comprehension parallels or exceeds their comprehension of speech + sign. Overall, the language results obtained from these teenagers with more than 10 yrs of CI experience reflect substantial improvement over the verbal skills exhibited by adolescents with similar levels of hearing loss before the advent of CIs. These optimistic results were observed in teenagers who were among the first in the United States and Canada to receive a CI. We anticipate that the use of improved technology that is being initiated at even younger ages should lead to age-appropriate language levels in an even larger proportion of children with CIs. This article reports language test results for 112 teenagers who received a cochlear implant during their preschool years and had previously been evaluated when they were 8 or 9 yrs of age. More than 60% of the sample achieved scores comparable with those of typically developing, age-matched hearing children from the normative samples of the tests administered. Language levels exceed those observed in the same children in early elementary grades. Better language outcomes were associated with higher intelligence and family socioeconomic status, shorter duration of deafness before cochlear implantation, and greater reliance on speech for communication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it