Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:20:56.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Outcomes of cochlear implantation in deaf children of deaf parents: comparative study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 August 2012

S Hassanzadeh
S Hassanzadeh*
Affiliation:
Psychology and Education of Exceptional Children Department, Psychology and Education Faculty, University of Tehran, Iran
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Saeid Hassanzadeh, University of Tehran, Psychology and Education Faculty, Nasim St, Gisha Bridge, Alleahmad Avenue, Tehran, Iran Fax: 0098 21 88288602, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This retrospective study compared the cochlear implantation outcomes of first- and second-generation deaf children.

Methods:

The study group consisted of seven deaf, cochlear-implanted children with deaf parents. An equal number of deaf children with normal-hearing parents were selected by matched sampling as a reference group. Participants were matched based on onset and severity of deafness, duration of deafness, age at cochlear implantation, duration of cochlear implantation, gender, and cochlear implant model. We used the Persian Auditory Perception Test for the Hearing Impaired, the Speech Intelligibility Rating scale, and the Sentence Imitation Test, in order to measure participants' speech perception, speech production and language development, respectively.

Results:

Both groups of children showed auditory and speech development. However, the second-generation deaf children (i.e. deaf children of deaf parents) exceeded the cochlear implantation performance of the deaf children with hearing parents.

Conclusion:

This study confirms that second-generation deaf children exceed deaf children of hearing parents in terms of cochlear implantation performance. Encouraging deaf children to communicate in sign language from a very early age, before cochlear implantation, appears to improve their ability to learn spoken language after cochlear implantation.

Keywords

DeafnessEar, InnerCochlear ImplantationPrognosisOutcomes Research
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 126 , Issue 10 , October 2012 , pp. 989 - 994
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Mayberry, RI. Cognitive development in deaf children: the interface of language and perception in neuropsychology. In: Segalowitz, SJ, Rapin, I, eds. Handbook of Neuropsychology, 2nd edn.Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2002;71–107Google Scholar
2Sisco, F, Anderson, RJ. Hearing impaired children's performance on the WISC-R relative to hearing status of parents and child-rearing experiences. Am Ann Deaf 1980;125:923–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Conrad, R, Weiskrantz, BC. On the cognitive ability of hearing impaired children with hearing impaired parents. Am Ann Deaf 1981;126:995–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Spencer, PE, Deyo, D, Grindstaff, N. Symbolic play behavior of hearing impaired and hearing toddlers. In: Moores, DF, Meadow-Orleans, KP, eds. Educational and Developmental Aspects of Hearing Impairment. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1990;390–406Google Scholar
5Bandurski, M, Galkowski, T. The development of analogical reasoning in hearing impaired children and their parents' communication mode. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2004;9:153–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Peterson, CC, Siegal, M. Deafness, conversation and theory of mind. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1995;36:459–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Peterson, CC, Siegal, M. Domain specificity and everyday biological, physical, and psychological thinking in normal, autistic, and deaf children. In: Wellman, MM, Inagaki, K, eds. The Emergence of Core Domains of Thought. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997;55–70Google Scholar
8Peterson, CC, Siegal, M. Changing focus on the representational mind: deaf, autistic and normal children's concepts of false photos, false drawings and false beliefs. Brit J Dev Psychol 1998;16:301–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Peterson, CC, Siegal, M. Representing inner worlds: theory of mind in autistic, deaf, and normal hearing children. Psychol Sci 1999;10:126–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Peterson, CC, Siegal, M. Insights into theory of mind from deafness and autism. Mind Lang 2000;15:77–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Russell, PA, Hosie, JA, Gray, CD, Scott, C, Hunter, N, Banks, JS et al. The development of theory of mind in deaf children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1998;39:903–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Courtin, C. The impact of sign language on cognitive development of deaf children: the case of theories of mind. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2000;5:266–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Woolfe, T, Want, S, Siegal, M. Signposts to development: theory of mind in deaf children. Child Development 2002;73:768–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Geers, A, Schick, B. Acquisition of spoken and signed English by hearing-impaired children of hearing-impaired or hearing parents. J Speech Hear Disord 1988;53:136–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Braden, JP. An explanation of the superior performance IQs of deaf children of deaf parents. Am Ann Deaf 1987;132:263–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Bettger, JG, Emmorey, K, Bellugi, U. Enhanced facial discrimination: effects of experience with American Sign Language. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 1997;2:223–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Wolff, AB, Thatcher, RW. Cortical reorganization in deaf children. J Clin Exp Neuropsych 1990;12:209–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Mayberry, RI. Deaf children's reading comprehension in reaction to sign language structure and input. Applied Psycholinguistics 2007;28:537–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Mayberry, RI. When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Appl Psycholinguistics 2007;28:537–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Hassanzadeh, S. Adaptation and Standardization of Persian Auditory Perception Test for Hearing Impaired Children [in Persian].Tehran: RIES, 2001Google Scholar
21Allen, MC, Nikolopoulos, TP, O'Donoghue, GM. Speech intelligibility in children after cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 1998;19:742–5Google ScholarPubMed
22Seeff-Gabriel, B, Chiat, S, Dodd, B. Sentence imitation as a tool in identifying expressive morphosyntactic difficulties in children with severe speech difficulties. Int J Lang Comm Dis 2010;45:691–702CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Hassanzadeh, S, Minaei, A. Adaptation and normalization of Persian language development test for Persian language children in Tehran [in Persian]. Research on Exceptional Children 2001;1:119–35Google Scholar
24Schlesinger, HS, Meadow, KP. Sound and Sign: Childhood Deafness and Mental Health. Berkley: University of California Press, 1972Google Scholar
25Bellugi, U, O'Grady, L, Lillo-Martin, D, Hynes, MO, Van, Hoek K, Corina D: Enhancement of spatial cognition in deaf children. In: Volterra, V, Erting, CJ, eds. From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990;278–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Adams, JW. You and Your Deaf Child: A Self-Help Guide for Parents of Deaf and Hard-of-hearing Children. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press, 1997Google Scholar
27Boudreault, P, Mayberry, RI. Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Lang Cognitive Proc 2006;21:608–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar