Teaching language components to deaf/hard-of-hearing and cochlear implant users: a literature review

Lucchesi, Fernando Del Mando; Almeida-Verdu, Ana Claudia Moreira

doi:10.1590/1982-021620171965717

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

REVIEW ARTICLES • Rev. CEFAC 19 (6) • Dec 2017 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-021620171965717 copy

Teaching language components to deaf/hard-of-hearing and cochlear implant users: a literature review

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Cochlear implants are one of the possible ways for Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing (DHH) individuals to detect sounds and as a mean of insertion in the social, academic and work environments. Nevertheless, in many cases, the cochlear implant alone is not sufficient, demanding hearing and expressive language skills rehabilitation to optimize the device used. This study aimed at reviewing scientific articles that described empirical research with interventions and/or teaching methods of various language repertoires to deaf and hard-of-hearing cochlear implant users. The review was carried out in five scientific databases considering all periods. On the first phase, 156 articles were identified and from these, 24 publications were selected. After being read, these articles were categorized and analyzed as to the participants, teaching targets and procedures adopted. On the last stage of the research, 10 experimental studies were selected and analyzed regarding procedures and results, indicating important factors in teaching this population. The results point to the necessity of an increase of scientific production in the construction and evaluation of effective verbal repertoires teaching programs for cochlear implant users.

Keywords:
Cochlear Implants; Teaching; Language Development; Review Literature as Topic

Publications	Participants Number	Diagnosis			Device		Participants by age
Publications	Participants Number	pre	post	hear	CI	HA	0 - 5	6 - 11	12 - 18	19 - 59
Lund and Douglas ²³23. Lund E, Douglas M. Teaching vocabulary to preschool children with hearing loss. Except child. 2016;83(1):26-41. Doi: 10.1177/0014402916651848 https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651848...	9	9		0	6	3	9	0	0	0
Douglas ³⁴34. Douglas M. Improving spoken language outcomes for children with hearing loss: Data-driven Instruction. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(2):13-9. Doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000902. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.000000000000...	22	22		0	15	7	16	6	0	0
Suskind et al. ³³33. Suskind DL, Graf E, Leffel KR, Hernandez MW, Suskind E, Webber R et al. Project ASPIRE: Spoken language intervention curriculum for parents of low-socioeconomic status and their Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(2):110-17. Doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000931. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.000000000000...	44	11		22	11	11	22	0	0	22
Richels et al. ¹⁸18. Richels CG, Schwartz KS, Bobzien JL, Raver SA. Structured instruction with modified storybooks to teach morphosyntax and vocabulary to preschoolers who are deaf/hard of hearing. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2016;21(4):352-61. Doi: 10.1093/deafed/enw049. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw049...	3	3	0	0	1	2	3	0	0	0
Messier and Wood ²⁵25. Messier J, Wood C. Facilitating vocabulary acquisition of children with cochlear implants using electronic storybooks. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2015;20(4):356-73. Doi:10.1093/deafed/env031. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env031...	18	18		0	18	0	18		0	0
Bobzien et al. ¹⁹19. Bobzien JL, Richels C, Schwartz K, Raver SA, Hester P, Morin L. Using repeated reading and explicit instruction to teach vocabulary to preschoolers with hearing loss. Infants Young Child. 2015;28(3):262-80. Doi: 10.1097/IYC.0000000000000039 https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.000000000000...	4	4	0	0	1	3	4	0	0	0
Anastacio-Pessan et al. ²⁰20. Anastácio-Pessan FL, Almeida-Verdu ACM, Bevilacqua MC, de Souza DG. Usando o paradigma de equivalência para aumentar a correspondência na fala de crianças com implante coclear na nomeação de figuras e na leitura. Psicol Reflex Crít. 2015;28(2):365-77.	6	4	2	0	6	0	0	3	3	0
Lucchesi et al. ²¹21. Lucchesi FD, Almeida-Verdu ACM, Buffa MJMB, Bevilacqua MC. Efeitos de um programa de ensino de leitura sobre a inteligibilidade da fala de crianças usuárias de implante coclear. Psicol Reflex Crít. 2015;28(3):500-10.	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	2	0	0
Clare Allen et al. ³¹31. Clare Allen M, Kendrick A, Archbold S, Harrigan S. LEAPing on with language: An on-line language programme to support classroom teachers and parents of primary school children (aged 5-11 years). Cochlear Implants Int. 2014;15(S1):36-8. Doi:10.1179/1467010014Z.000000000169 https://doi.org/10.1179/1467010014Z.0000...	51	0	0	51	0	0	0	0	0	51
Nakeva von Mentzer et al. ³²32. Nakeva von Mentzer C, Lyxell B, Sahlén B, Dahlström O, Lindgren M, Ors M et al. Computer-assisted reading intervention with a phonics approach for children using cochlear implants or hearing aids. Scand J Psychol. 2014;55(5):448-55. Doi: 10.1111/sjop.12149. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12149...	48	32		16	17	15	48		0	0
Lew et al. ²²22. Lew J, Purcell AA, Doble M, Lim LH. Hear here: children with hearing loss learn words by listening. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78(10):1716-25.	3	3		0	1	2	3	0	0	0
Lund and Schuele ¹⁷17. Lund E, Schuele CM. Effects of a word-learning training on children with cochlear implants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2014;19(1):68-84.	5	5	0	0	5	0	5	0	0	0
Raver et al. ¹⁶16. Raver SA, Bobzien J, Richels C, Hester P, Anthony N. Using dyad-specific social stories to increase communicative and social skills of preschoolers with hearing loss in self-contained and inclusive settings. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2014;18(1):18-35. Doi: 10.1080/13603116.2012.756543 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.75...	4	4	0	0	2	2	4	0	0	0
Innes-Brown et al. ²⁴24. Innes-Brown H, Marozeau JP, Storey CM, Blamey PJ. Tone, rhythm, and timbre perception in school-age children using cochlear implants and hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 2013;24(9):789-806.	20	11		9	6	5	0	12	6	0
Faulkner et al. ²⁹29. Faulkner A, Rosen S, Green T. Comparing live to recorded speech in training the perception of spectrally shifted noise-vocoded speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;132(4):336-42.	48	0	0	48	0	0	0	0	0	48
Kosaner et al. ³⁰30. Kosaner J, Kilinc A, Deniz M. Developing a music programme for preschool children with cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int. 2012;13(4):237-47.	25	25		0	25	0	25		0	0
Smith and Wang ³⁵35. Smith A, Wang Y. The impact of visual phonics on the phonological awareness and speech production of a student who is deaf: a case study. Am Ann Deaf. 2010;155(2):124-30.	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0
Stacey et al. ²⁶26. Stacey PC, Raine CH, O'Donoghue GM, Tapper L, Twomey T, Summerfield AQ. Effectiveness of computer-based auditory training for adult users of cochlear implants. Int J Audiol. 2010;49(5):347-56.	11	5	6	0	11	0	0	0	0	11
Stacey and Summerfield ²⁷27. Stacey PC, Summerfield AQ. Comparison of word-, sentence-, and phoneme-based training strategies in improving the perception of spectrally distorted speech. J speech lang hear res. 2008;51(2):526-38.	18	0	0	18	0	0	0	0	0	18
Nogaki et al. ²⁸28. Nogaki G, Fu Q, Galvin III JJ. The effect of training rate on recognition of spectrally shifted speech. Ear Hear. 2007;28(2):132-40.	18	0	0	18	0	0	0	0	0	18
Torres et al. ³⁶36. Torres S, Moreno-Torres I, Santana R. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of linguistic input support to a prelingually deaf child with cued speech: A case study. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2006;11(4):438-48.	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0
Abdi et al. ¹⁴14. Abdi S, Khalessi MH, Khorsandi M, Gholami B. Introducing music as a means of habilitation for children with cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2001;59(2):105-13.	14	14	0	0	14	0	7	6	1	0
Connor et al. ¹³13. Connor CM, Hieber S, Arts HA, Zwolan TA. Speech, Vocabulary, and the education of children using cochlear implants: oral or total communication? J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(5):1185-204.	147	147	0	0	147	0	0	147	0	0
Schopmeyer et al. ¹²12. Schopmeyer B, Mellon N, Dobaj H, Grant G, Niparko JK. Use of Fast ForWord to enhance language development in children with cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. Suppl. 2000;185:95-8.	11	11		0	11	0	11		0	0
	533	332	150	182	301	50	177	278	10	168

Publication	Target	Procedures	Participants	Results
Lund and Douglas ²³23. Lund E, Douglas M. Teaching vocabulary to preschool children with hearing loss. Except child. 2016;83(1):26-41. Doi: 10.1177/0014402916651848 https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916651848...	Expressive Vocabulary	Word contextualizing (describing things), imitation, auditory-visual MTS, naming.	Nine. Between 4 and 5 years old. Six using CI.	Experimental group learned a mean of 5 words per week. In contrast, 0.5 words were learned by incidental teaching per week.
Richels et al. ¹⁸18. Richels CG, Schwartz KS, Bobzien JL, Raver SA. Structured instruction with modified storybooks to teach morphosyntax and vocabulary to preschoolers who are deaf/hard of hearing. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2016;21(4):352-61. Doi: 10.1093/deafed/enw049. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enw049...	Expressive Vocabulary	Response shaping and modeling technics through hearing peers that described actions.	Three. Between 3 and 4 years old. One CI user.	P1 and P3 achieved criteria after six sessions, while P2 needed 20 sessions (and did not show maintenance of performance after a few weeks)
Messier and Wood ²⁵25. Messier J, Wood C. Facilitating vocabulary acquisition of children with cochlear implants using electronic storybooks. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2015;20(4):356-73. Doi:10.1093/deafed/env031. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env031...	Expressive Vocabulary	Digital book reading with parents. Programmed activities (context and phonetic focused). Control: just reading.	18 children between 4 and 9 years old. All CI users.	Experimental group showed better word definition, expressive and receptive vocabulary than control group.
Anastacio-Pessan et al. ²⁰20. Anastácio-Pessan FL, Almeida-Verdu ACM, Bevilacqua MC, de Souza DG. Usando o paradigma de equivalência para aumentar a correspondência na fala de crianças com implante coclear na nomeação de figuras e na leitura. Psicol Reflex Crít. 2015;28(2):365-77.	Expressive Vocabulary	Auditory-visual MTS programmed trials using pictures, words and syllables.	Six. Between 11 and 14 years old. All CI users.	All children learned the taught relations. Four participants showed improved naming performance. 3 presented generalization to new pictures.
Lucchesi et al. ²¹21. Lucchesi FD, Almeida-Verdu ACM, Buffa MJMB, Bevilacqua MC. Efeitos de um programa de ensino de leitura sobre a inteligibilidade da fala de crianças usuárias de implante coclear. Psicol Reflex Crít. 2015;28(3):500-10.	Expressive Vocabulary	Auditory-visual MTS programmed trials using pictures, words and syllables.	Two. Between 7 and 8 years old. Both CI users.	Both children presented improvements during picture naming tasks.
Nakeva von Mentzer et al. ³²32. Nakeva von Mentzer C, Lyxell B, Sahlén B, Dahlström O, Lindgren M, Ors M et al. Computer-assisted reading intervention with a phonics approach for children using cochlear implants or hearing aids. Scand J Psychol. 2014;55(5):448-55. Doi: 10.1111/sjop.12149. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12149...	Reading	Auditory-visual MTS programmed trials with letters, syllables and words. Difficulty progression.	DHH group- 32 (4 to 7 years, 17 CI). Hearing group- 16 (5 to 8 years).	Both groups improved. DHH had lower baseline performances. Hearing group was better at sentence comprehension and word decoding.
Lew et al. ²²22. Lew J, Purcell AA, Doble M, Lim LH. Hear here: children with hearing loss learn words by listening. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78(10):1716-25.	Auditory Discrimination	Auditory-visual MTS trials. 10 difficulty levels of auditory discrimination.	Three. Between 2 and 3 years old. One CI user.	All showed improvements at least in two points (0-10) accordingly to their tests. Only one participant showed improvement by standardized tests.
Lund and Schuele ¹⁷17. Lund E, Schuele CM. Effects of a word-learning training on children with cochlear implants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2014;19(1):68-84.	Expressive Vocabulary	Vocal imitation and picture contextualization tasks.	Five. Between 3 and 5 years old. All CI users.	Regarding auditory discrimination, participants showed improvements. However little improvement in expressive vocabulary was observed.
Stacey et al. ²⁶26. Stacey PC, Raine CH, O'Donoghue GM, Tapper L, Twomey T, Summerfield AQ. Effectiveness of computer-based auditory training for adult users of cochlear implants. Int J Audiol. 2010;49(5):347-56.	Auditory Discrimination	Discrimination tasks of isolated words and words within sentences (computerized and self-administered)	11. Between 23 and 71 years old. CI users.	8 participants completed the entire program. Improvements in consonants discrimination, but not with vowels and sentences.
Schopmeyer et al. ¹²12. Schopmeyer B, Mellon N, Dobaj H, Grant G, Niparko JK. Use of Fast ForWord to enhance language development in children with cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. Suppl. 2000;185:95-8.	Auditory Discrimination	Fast ForWord program. Many programmed tasks. In general, auditory discrimination tasks with difficulty progression.	11. Mean age of seven years old. All CI users.	All children showed improvements on 5 standardized tests of receptive and expressive language.

ABRAMO Associação Brasileira de Motricidade Orofacial Rua Uruguaiana, 516, Cep 13026-001 Campinas SP Brasil, Tel.: +55 19 3254-0342 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistacefac@cefac.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Mailing address: Fernando Del Mando Lucchesi, Faculdade de Ciências, UNESP - Departamento de Psicologia, Av. Engº Edmundo Carrijo Coube s/nº. CEP: 17033-360 - Bauru, São Paulo, Brasil, E-mail: fdmlucchesi@gmail.com