988368
چهارشنبه 7 آذر 1403
Phonological measurement indices in hearing impaired children:cochlear implantation and hearing aids
چکیده: (602 مشاهده)
Objectives: Since the auditory system is the basis for language acquisition, presence of phonological deficits is expected in people with hearing impairment. This study aimed to compare the phonological measurement indices in children with cochlear implants, hearing aid and normal hearing.
Study Sample: The participants were 3-6 years old Persian-speaking children with hearing aids (n=25), cochlear implants (n=25), and normal hearing (n=50).
Methods: The phonological subtest of the Persian version of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP) which includes the two tasks of the picture naming and the picture description was performed, and the phonological indices including PMLU, PWP PWC, PCC and PVC were calculated. The performances of participants of the three groups in each index were compared in terms of the tasks and measures. Also, in each group, the participants' performances were compared between the two tasks.
Results: The mean score of phonological indices had a significant difference among the three groups (P<0.001). Also, the difference in the mean of all phonological indices in the two tasks was significant only in the group with hearing aids (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Despite having a new and more useful technology than hearing aids, CI children still have problems with phonemic accuracy especially whole-word indices compared to normal children. Also, the difference in indicators among the two tasks of picture naming and picture description confirms the influence of the phonetic context, which should be taken into account in the evaluation and treatment of phonological deficits in these children.
Study Sample: The participants were 3-6 years old Persian-speaking children with hearing aids (n=25), cochlear implants (n=25), and normal hearing (n=50).
Methods: The phonological subtest of the Persian version of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP) which includes the two tasks of the picture naming and the picture description was performed, and the phonological indices including PMLU, PWP PWC, PCC and PVC were calculated. The performances of participants of the three groups in each index were compared in terms of the tasks and measures. Also, in each group, the participants' performances were compared between the two tasks.
Results: The mean score of phonological indices had a significant difference among the three groups (P<0.001). Also, the difference in the mean of all phonological indices in the two tasks was significant only in the group with hearing aids (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Despite having a new and more useful technology than hearing aids, CI children still have problems with phonemic accuracy especially whole-word indices compared to normal children. Also, the difference in indicators among the two tasks of picture naming and picture description confirms the influence of the phonetic context, which should be taken into account in the evaluation and treatment of phonological deficits in these children.
