Wu et al.(1616 Wu CM, Ko HC, Chen YA, Tsou YT, Chao WC. Written language ability in mandarin-speaking children with cochlear implants. BioMed Res Int. 2015;2015:282164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/282164. PMid:26236722.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/282164...
)
|
45 children with CI |
Average implant age: 4 years old and one month; |
2nd to 6th years of “primary school” |
Written Language Ability Diagnostic Test for Children; Test of Reading Comprehension; Graded Chinese Character Recognition Test
|
The implanted children tend to write shorter stories, disorganized and lacking in plot, while formulating morphosyntatically correct sentences. Special attention is necessary about their hearing and linguistic performance, which can lead to problems in written language. |
Von Mentzer et al.(1717 Von Mentzer CN, Lyxell B, Shalén B, Dahlström O, Lindgren M, Ors M, et al. Segmental and suprasegmental properties in nonword repetition? An explorative study of the associations with nonword decoding in children with normal hearing and children with bilateral cochlear implants. Clin Linguist Phon. 2014;29(3):216-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2014.987926. PMid:25489675.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2014....
)
|
11 children with CI |
Average of 20 months |
Regular school; bilingual school (sign language and oral communication) |
All children attended an intervention study assisted by computer with phonetic approach and three points in test (baseline, pre-intervention and post-intervention); Sound Information Processing System (SIPS); The Test of Word Reading Efficiency.
|
The absence of frequent and significant associations between wordless repetition and wordless decoding with children with CI in comparison with children with regular hearing suggests that these children to use, partially, other decoding strategies to compensate less precise phonoaudiologic knowledge, for example, lexicalization in wordless decoding, specifically, transforming a real word into a non-word. |
Apel and Masterson(1818 Apel K, Masterson JJ. Comparing the spelling and reading abilities of students with cochlear implants and students with typical hearing. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2015;20(2):125-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env002. PMid:25693579.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env002...
)
|
09 children with CI |
Before 3 years old |
Regular school; special and regular school |
TOWRE (sub-tests SWE and Phonetic Decoding Efficiency (PDE); Test of comprehension and efficiency of silent reading (TOSREC) |
The correlations between orthography measures and reading of real words and reading comprehension were lower in CI-wearing students. |
Gallego et al.(1919 Gallego C, Martín-Aragoneses MT, López-Higes R, Pisón G. Semantic and syntactic reading comprehension strategies used by deaf children with early and late cochlear implantation. Res Dev Disabil. 2016;49-50:153-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.11.020. PMid:26704778.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.11...
)
|
38 children with CI |
19 before 24 months; other 19 between 24 months to 5 years old. |
Primary School |
Semantic strategies detection test created; WISC-IV Perceptual Reasoning Index; WISC-IV Forward Digit Span (FDS); Peabody Picture Vocabulary test (Spanish version); Sub-tests “Grammatical structures (GS)” e “Repetition of Pseudowords (NWR)” PROLEC-R |
These findings are discussed in terms of differences in the receptive vocabulary and short-term memory and their implications for the comprehension of sentence reading. |
Domínguez et al.(2020 Domínguez AB, Carrilo MS, González VG, Alegria J. How do deaf children with and without cochlear implants manage to read sentences: the key word strategy. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2016;21(3):280-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw026. PMid:27151899.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw026...
)
|
77 children with CI |
Between 8 months of life and 11 years old. |
Primary school: 1st to 6th year |
READ test; SMT test |
The reading and linguistic levels reached by CI-wearing children depend on their ability to extract information contained in the spoken language to which they were exposed. The level of reading of this group is not significantly different from the level of hearing children from the same age. All participating groups used the keyword strategy. Deaf children, including those who use CI since a certain age also showed deficit in dealing with content words when the tasks demanded profound associations between them. |
Rezaei et al.(2121 Rezaei M, Rashedi V, Morasae EK. Reading skills in Persian deaf children with cochlear implants and hearing aids. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;89:1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.07.010. PMid:27619019.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2016....
)
|
24 children with CI |
2 years of age (on average) |
“Basic School” (from 4 to 11 years old) not specifying the year |
Nama test: Repetition of pseudowords; word reading; reading of pseudowords; comprehension of words; text comprehension. |
Considering the findings, the CI is not significantly more effective than the hearing aid at improving the reading skills. Of course that, even with considerable advancements in the hearing aid, many deaf children continue to think that literacy is a challenge |
Göçmenler and Çiprut(2222 Göçmenler H, Çiprut A. Evaluation of gap filling skills and reading mistakes of cochlear implanted and normally hearing students. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;109:27-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.03.014. PMid:29728179.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2018....
)
|
19 children with CI |
12 received the implant before 36 months of age; 7 received after 36 months. |
6th, 7th and 8th years |
Informal Reading Inventory
|
Even if being implanted early, there were significant differences in the reading performance of implanted students compared to those colleagues with regular hearing in older classes. |
Pooresmaeil et al.(55 Pooresmaeil E, Mohamadi R, Ghorbani A, Kamali M. The relationship between comprehension of syntax and reading comprehension in cochlear implanted and hearing children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;121:114-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.03.004. PMid:30878557.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2019....
)
|
15 children with CI |
Between 2 to 6 years old. |
3rd, 4th e 5th years |
Reading and dyslexia test (NAMA)
|
Based on the findings of the present study, we can conclude that a focus in syntax comprehension in the intervention can improve reading comprehension. It seems that working with complicated structures, in particular, helps the children improve their reading comprehension. The syntax comprehension skills affect the reading comprehension in children with CI, and the biggest relation can be found in reversible syntax structures and in structures related to verbs. |
Thumbnail
Subtitle: CI = Cochlear Implant; n = number of studies