Prosody Perception and Production in Children with Hearing Loss and Age- and Gender-Matched Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Auditory development in children with hearing loss, including the perception of prosody, depends on having adequate input from cochlear implants and/or hearing aids. Lack of adequate auditory stimulation can lead to delayed speech and language development. Nevertheless, prosody perception and production in people with hearing loss have received less attention than other aspects of language. The perception of auditory information conveyed through prosody using variations in the pitch, amplitude, and duration of speech is not usually evaluated clinically. PURPOSE: This study (1) compared prosody perception and production abilities in children with hearing loss and children with normal hearing; and (2) investigated the effect of age, hearing level, and musicality on prosody perception. RESEARCH DESIGN: Participants were 16 children with hearing loss and 16 typically developing controls matched for age and gender. Fifteen of the children with hearing loss were tested while using amplification (n = 9 hearing aids, n = 6 cochlear implants). Six receptive subtests of the Profiling Elements of Prosody in Speech-Communication (PEPS-C), the Child Paralanguage subtest of Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy 2 (DANVA 2), and Contour and Interval subtests of the Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Amusia (MBEA) were used. Audio recordings of the children's reading samples were rated using a perceptual prosody rating scale by nine experienced listeners who were blinded to the children's hearing status. STUDY SAMPLE: Thirty two children, 16 with hearing loss (mean age = 8.71 yr) and 16 age- and gender-matched typically developing children with normal hearing (mean age = 8.87 yr). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Assessments were completed in one session lasting 1-2 hours in a quiet room. Test items were presented using a laptop computer through loudspeaker at a comfortable listening level. For children with hearing loss using hearing instruments, all tests were completed with hearing devices set at their everyday listening setting. RESULTS: All PEPS-C subtests and total scores were significantly lower for children with hearing loss compared to controls (p < 0.05). The hearing loss group performed more poorly than the control group in recognizing happy, sad, and fearful emotions in the DANVA 2 subtest. Musicality (composite MBEA scores and musical experience) was significantly correlated with prosody perception scores, but this link was not evident in the regression analyses. Regression modeling showed that age and hearing level (better ear pure-tone average) accounted for 55.4% and 56.7% of the variance in PEPS-C and DANVA 2 total scores, respectively. There was greater variability for the ratings of pitch, pitch variation, and overall impression of prosody in the hearing loss group compared to control group. Prosody perception (PEPS-C and DANVA 2 total scores) and ratings of prosody production were not correlated. CONCLUSIONS: Children with hearing loss aged 7-12 yr had significant difficulties in understanding different aspects of prosody and were rated as having more atypical prosody overall than controls. These findings suggest that clinical assessment and speech-language therapy services for children with hearing loss should be expanded to target prosodic difficulties. Future studies should investigate whether musical training is beneficial for improving receptive prosody skills.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".