The production of English inflectional morphology, speech production and listening performance in children with cochlear implants

被引:41
作者
Spencer, LJ
Tye-Murray, N
Tomblin, JB
机构
[1] Univ Iowa, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
[2] Univ Iowa, Dept Speech Pathol & Audiol, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
[3] Cent Inst Deaf, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/00003446-199808000-00006
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Objective: To compare how children who use either cochlear implants (CIs) or hearing aids (HAs) express English inflectional morphemes during conversation, i.e., with voice, with sign, or with both. A secondary objective was to investigate the relationship between morpheme use in pediatric CI users and their speech perception skills, length of experience with the device, and accuracy of phoneme production. Design: Group 1 consisted of 25 children who used CIs, and Group 2 consisted of 13 children who used HAs. All children were prelingually deafened and all used simultaneous communication. A 12 minute spontaneous conversation was elicited, transcribed and coded. Between group comparisons were performed to evaluate differences in modality and number of morphemes used. Additionally, use of morpheme endings was related to length of CI experience, accuracy of phoneme production, and closed-set speech recognition performance. Results: Children who had CI experience produced significantly more English inflected morphemes than children in the HA group. CI participants also expressed the inflected endings by using voice-only mode 91% of the time, whereas HA participants used voice-only mode 1% of the time. In the CI group, a strong relationship was found between number of morpheme endings used and speech recognition scores, length of CI experience and accuracy of phoneme production. The results of this study indicate that input from the CI facilitates children's ability to perceive and comprehend bound morphemes.
引用
收藏
页码:310 / 318
页数:9
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1949, THESIS NW U EVANSTON
  • [2] COMPARISON OF SIGN LANGUAGE AND SPOKEN LANGUAGE
    BELLUGI, U
    FISCHER, S
    [J]. COGNITION, 1972, 1 (2-3) : 173 - 200
  • [3] Bloomfield Leonard, 1933, Language
  • [4] SIGNED ENGLISH - A 1ST EVALUATION
    BORNSTEIN, H
    SAULNIER, KL
    HAMILTON, LB
    [J]. AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF, 1980, 125 (04) : 467 - 481
  • [5] CONNELL PJ, 1989, GENERALIZATION STRAT, P44
  • [6] ABILITY OF DEAF AND HEARING CHILDREN TO APPLY MORPHOLOGICAL RULES
    COOPER, RL
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND HEARING RESEARCH, 1967, 10 (01): : 77 - &
  • [7] Crandall K E, 1978, J Speech Hear Res, V21, P372
  • [8] Dunn L., 1997, PEABODY PICTURE VOCA
  • [9] ENGEN E, 1983, RHODE ISLAND TEST LA
  • [10] AUDIOLOGIC EVALUATION OF DEAF-CHILDREN
    ERBER, NP
    ALENCEWICZ, CM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND HEARING DISORDERS, 1976, 41 (02): : 256 - 267