Exposure to sign language prior and after cochlear implantation increases language and cognitive skills in deaf children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence suggests that deaf children with CIs exposed to nonnative sign language from hearing parents can attain age-appropriate vocabularies in both sign and spoken language. It remains to be explored whether deaf children with CIs who are exposed to early nonnative sign language, but only up to implantation, also benefit from this input and whether these benefits also extend to memory abilities, which are strongly linked to language development. The present study examined the impact of deaf children's early short-term exposure to nonnative sign input on their spoken language and their phonological memory abilities. Deaf children who had been exposed to nonnative sign input before and after cochlear implantation were compared to deaf children who never had any exposure to sign input as well as to children with typical hearing. The children were between 5;1 and 7;1 years of age at the time of testing and were matched on age, sex, and socioeconomic status. The results suggest that even short-term exposure to nonnative sign input has positive effects on general language and phonological memory abilities as well as on nonverbal working memory-with total length of exposure to sign input being the best predictor of deaf children's performance on these measures. The present data suggest that even access to early short-term nonnative visual language input is beneficial for the language and phonological memory abilities of deaf children with cochlear implants, suggesting also that parents should not be discouraged from learning and exposing their child to sign language. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: This is the first study to examine the effects of early short-term exposure to nonnative sign input on French-speaking children with cochlear implants' spoken language and memory abilities. Early short-term nonnative exposure to sign input can have positive consequences for the language and phonological memory abilities of deaf children with CIs. Extended exposure to sign input has some additional and important benefits, allowing children to perform on par with children with typical hearing.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".