PURPOSE: To determine whether 3 aspects of the word learning process-fast mapping, retention, and extension-are problematic for children with cochlear implants (CIs). METHOD: The authors compared responses of 24 children with CIs, 24 age-matched hearing children, and 23 vocabulary-matched hearing children to a novel object noun training episode. Comprehension and production were measured immediately following training (fast mapping) as well as 1 day later (retention). Extension was measured in terms of the ability of the participants to identify new (untrained) exemplars. RESULTS: Compared with their hearing age-mates, children with CIs performed marginally more poorly on fast mapping as measured by the comprehension probe and more poorly on retention as measured by comprehension and production probes. The age-mates improved over the retention interval, but the children with CIs did not. Most of the children with CIs performed similarly to their age-mates on extension, but 2 children underextended, and 5 children failed to understand the task. Compared with younger vocabulary-matched peers, children with CIs did not differ at fast mapping, retention, or extension. CONCLUSIONS: Children with CIs demonstrated deficits in word learning, with retention being especially problematic. Their learning did not differ from that of younger children with similarly sized vocabularies.
PURPOSE: To determine whether 3 aspects of the word learning process-fast mapping, retention, and extension-are problematic for children with cochlear implants (CIs). METHOD: The authors compared responses of 24 children with CIs, 24 age-matched hearing children, and 23 vocabulary-matched hearing children to a novel object noun training episode. Comprehension and production were measured immediately following training (fast mapping) as well as 1 day later (retention). Extension was measured in terms of the ability of the participants to identify new (untrained) exemplars. RESULTS: Compared with their hearing age-mates, children with CIs performed marginally more poorly on fast mapping as measured by the comprehension probe and more poorly on retention as measured by comprehension and production probes. The age-mates improved over the retention interval, but the children with CIs did not. Most of the children with CIs performed similarly to their age-mates on extension, but 2 children underextended, and 5 children failed to understand the task. Compared with younger vocabulary-matched peers, children with CIs did not differ at fast mapping, retention, or extension. CONCLUSIONS:Children with CIs demonstrated deficits in word learning, with retention being especially problematic. Their learning did not differ from that of younger children with similarly sized vocabularies.
Entities:
Keywords:
children; cochlear implants; word learning
Authors: P J Blamey; J Z Sarant; L E Paatsch; J G Barry; C P Bow; R J Wales; M Wright; C Psarros; K Rattigan; R Tooher Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Carol McDonald Connor; Holly K Craig; Stephen W Raudenbush; Krista Heavner; Teresa A Zwolan Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Lynn K Perry; Samantha G Mitsven; Stephanie Custode; Laura Vitale; Brett Laursen; Chaoming Song; Daniel S Messinger Journal: Early Child Res Q Date: 2022-03-07