( Giraud & Lee, 2007 Pisoni, Conway, Kronenberger, Henning, & Anaya, 2012). Also, the development of cognitiveĭomains related to executive function and cognitive control processes and brain regionsĪssociated with working memory is influenced by auditory and linguistic experience The cause of these cognitive differences is unknown. (NH) and are at a higher risk of cognitive deficits (such as executive functioningĭeficits) than children with NH ( Kronenberger, Beer, Castellanos, Pisoni, & Miyamoto, 2014). Children with CIs score lower on cognitive tasks than children with normal hearing To correlate with their speech and language outcomes ( Harris et al., 2013 Kronenberger, Pisoni, Harris, et al., 2013 Pisoni, Kronenberger, Roman, & Geers, 2011). Working memory capacity in children with CIs has been found Period for language acquisition ( Ruben, 1997).Īnother explanation for the individual differences in language development relates Therefore, investigating this group of children is interesting in terms of a critical/sensitive The age of 3 and 5 years ( Kirk et al., 2002). It also holds for children with somewhat later implantation: Children implantedīefore the age of 3 years developed language faster than children implanted between ( Lesinski-Schiedat, Illg, Heermann, Betram, & Lenarz, 2004 Tomblin, Barker, Spencer, Zhang, & Gantz, 2005). Skills of children implanted at 12 months were better than those implanted at 24 months This holds for comparisons of implantation at very young ages. Receive their implant, the better their hearing outcomes and language outcomes ( Boons et al., 2012 Harrison, Gordon, & Mount, 2005 Sharma, Dorman, & Spahr, 2002 Szagun & Schramm, 2016), especially with respect to grammar and pragmatics ( Tobey et al., 2013). It is argued that the earlier the children Some of these individual differences with respect to language development can beĮxplained in terms of age at implantation. Szagun 2001 for Dutch, Giezen, 2011 Gillis, Schauwers, & Govaerts, 2002 for English, Niparko et al., 2010 Peterson, Pisoni, & Miyamoto, 2010 Stacey, Fortnum, Barton, & Summerfield, 2006 Svirsky, Teoh, & Neuburger, 2004 for French, Duchesne, Sutton, & Bergeron, 2009 Le Normand, Ouellet, & Cohen, 2003). With profound hearing loss using conventional hearing aids ( Geers & Moog, 1994 Geers, Nicholas, & Sedey, 2003 Svirsky, Robbins, Iler-Kirk, Pisoni, & Miyamoto, 2000 Tomblin, Spencer, Flock, Tyler, & Gantz, 1999).Īt the same time, large individual differences with respect to language developmentĪnd speech intelligibility have been found in children with CIs (e.g., for German, Children with profound hearing loss using CIs develop language faster than children Nevertheless, many CI users gain substantially from their implants ( Krueger et al., 2008). The sound provided from the CI is degraded as compared to acoustic sound ( Drennan & Rubinstein, 2008). The malfunctioning inner ear and electrically stimulating the auditory nerve directly. CIs are able to restore hearing by bypassing ≥ 70 dB HL) receive cochlear implants (CIs). Nowadays, many children with severe-to-profound hearing loss (i.e., pure-tone average

Digit span test backward interpretation