Early Sign Language Exposure and Cochlear Implantation Benefits
- PMID: 28759398
- PMCID: PMC5495521
- DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-3489
Early Sign Language Exposure and Cochlear Implantation Benefits
Abstract
Background: Most children with hearing loss who receive cochlear implants (CI) learn spoken language, and parents must choose early on whether to use sign language to accompany speech at home. We address whether parents' use of sign language before and after CI positively influences auditory-only speech recognition, speech intelligibility, spoken language, and reading outcomes.
Methods: Three groups of children with CIs from a nationwide database who differed in the duration of early sign language exposure provided in their homes were compared in their progress through elementary grades. The groups did not differ in demographic, auditory, or linguistic characteristics before implantation.
Results: Children without early sign language exposure achieved better speech recognition skills over the first 3 years postimplant and exhibited a statistically significant advantage in spoken language and reading near the end of elementary grades over children exposed to sign language. Over 70% of children without sign language exposure achieved age-appropriate spoken language compared with only 39% of those exposed for 3 or more years. Early speech perception predicted speech intelligibility in middle elementary grades. Children without sign language exposure produced speech that was more intelligible (mean = 70%) than those exposed to sign language (mean = 51%).
Conclusions: This study provides the most compelling support yet available in CI literature for the benefits of spoken language input for promoting verbal development in children implanted by 3 years of age. Contrary to earlier published assertions, there was no advantage to parents' use of sign language either before or after CI.
Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Conflict of interest statement
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Ms Mitchell, Dr Wang, and Dr Eisenberg receive support from Advanced Bionics through research contracts to their respective institutions; and Drs Geers and Warner-Czyz have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Figures

Comment in
-
Operationalization and Measurement of Sign Language.Pediatrics. 2017 Nov;140(5):e20172655B. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2655B. Pediatrics. 2017. PMID: 29089399 No abstract available.
-
Failure to Distinguish Among Competing Hypotheses.Pediatrics. 2017 Nov;140(5):e20172655C. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2655C. Pediatrics. 2017. PMID: 29089409 No abstract available.
-
Re: Responsible Publishing.Pediatrics. 2017 Nov;140(5):e20172655D. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2655D. Pediatrics. 2017. PMID: 29089410 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Re: Methodological Concerns Suspend Interpretations.Pediatrics. 2017 Nov;140(5):e20172655A. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2655A. Pediatrics. 2017. PMID: 29089411 No abstract available.
References
-
- Mitchell R, Karchmer M. Chasing the mythical ten percent: parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Lang Stud. 2004;4(2):138–163
-
- Napoli DJ, Mellon NK, Niparko JK, et al. . Should all deaf children learn sign language? Pediatrics. 2015;136(1):170–176 - PubMed
-
- Humphries T, Kushalnagar P, Mathur G, et al. . Ensuring language acquisition for deaf children: what linguists can do. Language. 2014;90(2):e31–e52
-
- Spencer L, Tomblin B. Speech production and spoken language development of children using “total communication” In: Spencer P, Marschark M, eds. Advances in Spoken Language Development of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006:166–192
-
- Fitzpatrick EM, Hamel C, Stevens A, et al. . Sign language and spoken language for children with hearing loss: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):e20151974 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical