Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in
CASE STUDY
SUPRASEGMENTAL FEATURES OF CI CHILDREN VIA
CLASSIFICATION OF PRE-LINGUISTIC UTTERANCES:
TWO LONGITUDINAL CASE STUDIES
1
Department of Educational & Social Policy, University of Macedonia, Egnatias 156, 54006, Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Department of Linguistics, University of Athens, Athens 15784, Greece
3
Academic ENT Department of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, AHEPA Hospital, 54006, Greece
Publication date: 2013-03-31
Corresponding author
Paraskevas Binos
Paraskevas Binos, Department of Educational & Social Policy, University of Macedonia, Egnatias 156, 54006, Thessaloniki, Greece, Phone: +306934223402, e-mail: pariss61@hotmail.com
Paraskevas Binos, Department of Educational & Social Policy, University of Macedonia, Egnatias 156, 54006, Thessaloniki, Greece, Phone: +306934223402, e-mail: pariss61@hotmail.com
J Hear Sci 2013;3(1):37-46
KEYWORDS
cochlear implantsinfant vocalizations post-implantspeech productionprelingual deafnessprosodic features
ABSTRACT
Background:
The speech prosody of young children who have CIs has not been the subject of detailed investigation. This case study is a longitudinal investigation of the vocalizations of two young children with CIs. The aims were to examine the suprasegmental characteristics of the prelinguistic utterances of these CI children and to develop a method for deriving phonoprosodic classifications using acoustical and auditory analyses.
Material and Method:
Spontaneous productions by two congenitally hearing-impaired Greek children fitted with a Nucleus-24 multichannel CI (ages 1: 10 and 2: 7; post-implant ages 0: 0 and 0: 6) were sampled for 6 months and, following transcription, classification of protophones was made. The analysis aimed to detect the frequency of occurrence of different protophone types in the infants’ utterances and to examine utterance duration and pitch contour via spectrography. Utterance characteristics were analyzed in relation to a) child’s age and b) post-implant age.
Results:
At post-implant age of 6 months, the younger and earlier implanted child showed more prelinguistic vocalizations and more complex structures than the older, later fitted child. The older, later CI recipient produced CV vocalizations at the beginning of implantation and gained a facility for frequent CV productions after 4 months of CI use.
Conclusions:
The findings are in agreement with other studies which observe that later CI recipients produce CV combinations at earlier phases of the prelexical period until the necessary auditory input is provided by CIs. Protophone vocalizations serve as a comparative parameter of speech production level in pre-lingual speech.
The speech prosody of young children who have CIs has not been the subject of detailed investigation. This case study is a longitudinal investigation of the vocalizations of two young children with CIs. The aims were to examine the suprasegmental characteristics of the prelinguistic utterances of these CI children and to develop a method for deriving phonoprosodic classifications using acoustical and auditory analyses.
Material and Method:
Spontaneous productions by two congenitally hearing-impaired Greek children fitted with a Nucleus-24 multichannel CI (ages 1: 10 and 2: 7; post-implant ages 0: 0 and 0: 6) were sampled for 6 months and, following transcription, classification of protophones was made. The analysis aimed to detect the frequency of occurrence of different protophone types in the infants’ utterances and to examine utterance duration and pitch contour via spectrography. Utterance characteristics were analyzed in relation to a) child’s age and b) post-implant age.
Results:
At post-implant age of 6 months, the younger and earlier implanted child showed more prelinguistic vocalizations and more complex structures than the older, later fitted child. The older, later CI recipient produced CV vocalizations at the beginning of implantation and gained a facility for frequent CV productions after 4 months of CI use.
Conclusions:
The findings are in agreement with other studies which observe that later CI recipients produce CV combinations at earlier phases of the prelexical period until the necessary auditory input is provided by CIs. Protophone vocalizations serve as a comparative parameter of speech production level in pre-lingual speech.
REFERENCES (53)
1.
Davis B, MacNeilage P, Matyear C. Acquisition of serial complexity in speech production: A comparison of phonetic and phonological approaches to first word production. Phonetica, 2002; 59: 75–107.
2.
Oller DK. Development of vocalizations in infancy. In: Winitz H, editor. Human communication and its disorders: A review. 4th ed. Timonium: York Press, 1995; 1–30.
3.
Vihman MM. Individual differences in babbling and early speech. In: Lindblom B, Zetterstrom R (eds.), Precursors of early speech. New York: Stockton Press, 1986; 21–35.
4.
Jakobson R. Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell; 1941.
5.
Carroll JB. Language Development. In: Harris CW, American Educational Research Association (eds.), Encyclopedia of educational research; a project of the American Educational Research Association. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1960; 744–52.
6.
Nathani S, Oller DK. Beyond ba-ba and gu-gu: Challenges and strategies in coding infant vocalizations. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput, 2001; 33(3): 321–30.
7.
Oller DK, Eilers R, Neal A, Schwartz H. Precursors to speech in infancy: The prediction of speech and language disorders. J Comm Disord, 1999; 32: 223–45.
8.
Stoel-Gammon CS. Role of babbling and phonology in early linguistic development. In: Wetherby AM, Warren SF, Reichle J (eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication. Baltimore: Brookes;1998; 7: 87–110.
9.
Ertmer D, Mellon J. Beginning to talk at 20 months: Early vocal development in a young cochlear implant recipient. JSLHR, 2001; 44: 192–206.
10.
Gerken LA, McGregor KK. An overview of prosody and its role in normal and disordered language. American J SpeechLanguage Pathology, 1998; 7: 38–48.
11.
Gerken LA. Prosodic structure in young children’s language production. Language, 1996; 72: 683–712.
12.
Schauwers K, Gillis S, Govaerts P. The characteristics of prelexical babbling after cochlear implantation between 5 and 20 months of age. Ear Hear, 2008; 29: 627–37.
13.
Schauwers K, Taelman H, Gillis S, Govaerts P. The phonological development in young hearing-impaired children with a cochlear implant. Proceedings of ELA Emergence of Language Abilities: Ontogeny and Phylogeny; 2005 Dec 8–10; Lyon, France.
14.
Hargrove PM. Prosodic aspects of language impairment in children. Topics in Lang Disorders, 1997; 17: 76–85.
15.
Devine AM, Stephen LD. Towards a new theory of Greek prosody: The suprasyllabic rules. TAPA, 1982; 112: 33–63.
16.
Fernald A. Hearing, listening, and understanding: Auditory development in infancy. In: Bremmer G, Fogel A (eds.), Blackwell handbook of infant development. London: Blackwell Publishing, 2004; 35–70.
17.
Katz GS, Cohn JF, Moore CA. A combination of vocal f0 dynamic and summary features discriminates between three pragmatic categories of infant-directed speech. Child Develop, 1996; 67: 205–17.
18.
Kitamura C, Lam C. Age-specific preferences for infant-directed affective intent. Infancy, 2009; 14: 1–24.
19.
Ishi CT, Ishiguro H, Hagita N. Evaluation of prosodic and voice quality features on automatic extraction of paralinguistic information. Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems; 2006 Oct 9–15; Beijing, China.
20.
Papousek M, Bornstein MH, Nuzzo C, Papousek H, Symmes D. Infant responses to prototypical melodic contours in parental speech. Inf Behavior and Develop, 1990; 13: 539–45.
21.
Nathani S, Oller DK. Prelinguistic vocal development in infants with typical hearing and infants with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Volta Rev, 2008; 108(2): 115–38.
22.
Hide Q, Gillis S, Govaerts P. Suprasegmental aspects of prelexical speech in cochlear implanted children. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Int Speech Com Association; 2007 Aug 27–31; Antwerp, Belgium. Curran Associates, Inc.; 2008.
23.
Ertmer D. Emergence of a vowel system in a young cochlear implant recipient. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2001; 44(4): 803–13.
24.
Lenden JM, Flipsen P. Prosody and voice characteristics of children with cochlear implants. J Commun Disord, 2007; 40(1): 66–81.
25.
Oller DK, Lynch MP. Infant vocalizations and innovations in infraphonology: Toward a broader theory of development and disorders. In: Ferguson C, Menn L, Stoel-Gammon C (eds.), Phonological development: Models, research, implications. Parkton: York Press; 1992; 509–36.
26.
Oller DK. The emergency of the speech capacity. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates; 2000.
27.
Koopmans-van Beinum FJ, van der Stelt JM. Early stages in the development of speech movements. In: Zetterstrom R (ed.), Precursors of early speech. New York: Stockton; 1986; 37–50.
28.
Koopmans-van Beinum FJ, Clement CJ, van der DikkenbergPot I. Babbling and the lack of auditory speech perception: A matter of coordination? Develop Science, 2001; 4: 61–70.
29.
Schauwers K, Govaerts P, Gillis S. Co-occurrence patterns in the babbling of children with a cochlear implant. In: Davis B, Zajdo K (eds.), The syllable in speech production: Perspectives on the frame content theory. New York: Taylor and Francis; 2008; 187–204.
30.
Miyamoto RT, Kirk KI, Robbins A, Todd S, Riley A. Speech perception and speech production skills of children with multichannel cochlear implants. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 1996; 116(2): 240–43.
31.
Tobey E, Geers A, Brenner C. Speech production results: Speech feature acquisition. The Volta Review, 1994; 96(5): 109–29.
32.
Geers A, Nicholas J, Sedey A. Language skills of children with early cochlear implantation. Ear Hear, 2003; 24(1): 46S–58S.
33.
Baudonck N, Dhooge I, D’haeseleer E, Van Lierde K. A comparison of the consonant production between Dutch children using CI and children using hearing aids. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2010; 74: 416–21.
34.
Löhle E, Frischmuth S, Holm M et al. Speech recognition, speech production and speech intelligibility in children with hearing aids versus implanted children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 1999; 47(2): 165–69.
35.
Van Lierde K, Vinck BM, Baudonck N, De vel E, Dhooge I. Comparison of the overall intelligibility, articulation, resonance, and voice characteristics between children using CI and those using bilateral hearing aids: A pilot study. Int J Audiol, 2005; 44: 452–65.
36.
Kishon-Rabin L, Taitelbaum R, Muchnik C, Gehtler I, Kronnenberg J, Hildesheimer M. Development of speech perception and production in children with cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 2002; 111: 85–90.
37.
Goffman L, Ertmer D, Erdle C. Changes in speech production in a child with a cochlear implant: Acoustic and kinematic evidence. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2002; 45: 891–901.
38.
Schramm B, Bohnert A, Keilmann A. The prelexical development in children implanted by 16 months compared with normal hearing children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2009; 73(12): 1673–81.
39.
Schramm B, Bohnert A, Keilmann A. Auditory, speech and language development in young children with cochlear implants compared with children with normal hearing. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2010; 74(7): 812–19.
40.
Kishon-Rabin L, Taitelbaum R, Tobin Y, Hildesheimer M. The effect of partially restored hearing on speech production of postlingually deafened adults with multichannel cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am, 1999; 106(5): 2843–57.
41.
Svirsky MA, Lane H, Perkell JS, Wozniak J. Effects of shortterm auditory deprivation on speech production in adult cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 1992; 92(3): 1284–300.
42.
Schauwers K, Gillis S, Daemers K, De Beukelaer C, Govaerts P. Cochlear Implantation between 5 and 20 months of age: The onset of babbling and the audiologic outcome. Otol Neurol, 2004; 25: 263–70.
43.
Ertmer DJ, Kirk KI, Sehgal ST, Riley AI. A comparison of vowel production by children with multichannel cochlear implants or tactile aids: Perceptual evidence. Ear Hear, 1997; 18: 307–15.
44.
Tobey EA, Angelette S, Murchison C. et al. Speech production performance in children with multichannel cochlear implants. Am J Otol, 1991; 12: 165–73.
45.
Fernald A, Mazzie C. Prosody and focus in speech to infants and adults. Develop Psycho, 1991; 27(2): 209–21.
46.
Papaeliou C, Minadakis G, Cavouras D. Acoustic patterns of infant vocalizations expressing emotions and communicative functions. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 2002; 45(2): 311–17.
47.
Karousou A, Kati D, Stabouliadou Ch. Phonoprosodic shape of vocalizations during the transition from prelingual to lingual communication. Studies for the Greek Language, 2009; 29: 486–99.
48.
Jusczyk PW. The Discovery of Spoken Language. Cambridge, Mass: The M.I.T. Press; 1997.
49.
Schauwers K, Gillis S, Govaerts P. Babbling in early implanted CI children. Int Congress Series, 2004; 1273: 344–347.
51.
Oller DK, Eilers R. The role of audition in infant babbling. Child Develop, 1988; 59: 441–49.
52.
Liwo H. Cochlear implant as an important factor of the development of prosodic features in prelingually deaf children under 2 years of age. J Hearing Science, 2011; 1(3): 73–75.
53.
Boons T, Brokx J, Dhooge I et al. Predictors of spoken language development following pediatric cochlear implantation. Ear Hear, 2012; 33(5): 617–39.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
