Linguists are explicitly divided on code switching's (CS hereinafter) effect on the oral communication skills of English language learners. Some studies asserted that CS is beneficial (positive) while others criticized its negative impact on the target language (TL hereinafter) proficiency in communication skills. This study examined the influence of CS strategy on the oral communication skills of bilingual Cebuano-Visayan Senior High School students of the University of Cebu - Banilad, Cebu City, Philippines. This serves to bridge the ongoing debate and as a recent contributing perspective on the CS phenomenon, especially the English and Cebuano-Visayan language pair not yet explored in a conversational analysis in a new dialectal context (locale). Employing a case study design with 9 participants for data saturation, real-life conversations of students and teachers in English classrooms were audio-recorded for one month, and triangulated with interviews and observations. Thematic and conversational analysis then ensued which yielded the finding that CS adversely affects the students' oral communication skills in the areas of morphology, phonology, and syntax but positively facilitates the strategic competence of the bilingual oral communicators. CS, therefore, has a polar influence (both positive and negative) on the student’s oral communication skills.

This simulation study assessed the ability of Speech-Output Technologies (SOTs) to keep in-time during conversational repair. Fifty-eight Other Initiated Repair (OIR) initiators were collected from transcripts of repair interaction sequences collected from past research. A range of selection latencies were then used to calculate simulated utterance composition delays for the OIR initiators using two popular SOT software apps, with and without the use of word prediction. To determine whether OIR utterances could be produced within a socially sensitive temporal gap, composition delay was compared to a conservative temporal limit obtained for oral communicators (Kendrick, 2015). Even at the fastest 0.5 s selection latency level, utterance-level composition delays for both SOTs were substantially greater than the OIR limit set for this study. Next, AAC production rate data spanning a variety of technologies, access methods, tasks and user profiles was obtained from the literature. Communication performance for these groups was then evaluated against the identified temporal OIR limit. None of the user groups were found to be capable of producing full OIR utterances within the temporal limits of oral-speech conversation, with most unable to type even a single selection within these bounds. Because of the frequency and importance of repair in conversation, these results have important implications for designing devices to enable their users to successfully engage in such important conversational activities.

Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of ceiling effects for commonly used speech perception tests in a large population of children who received a cochlear implant (CI) before the age of four. A secondary goal was to determine the demographic factors that were relevant for predicting which children were more likely to reach ceiling level performance. We hypothesize that ceiling effects are highly prevalent for most tests. Design Retrospective chart review of children receiving a CI between 2002 and 2014. Results 165 children were included. Median scores were above ceiling levels (≥90% correct) for the majority of speech perception tests and all distributions of scores were highly skewed. Children who were implanted earlier, received two implants, and were oral communicators were more likely to reach ceiling-level performance. Age and years of CI listening experience at time of test were negatively correlated with performance, suggesting a non-random assignment of tests. Many children were re-tested on tests for which they had already scored at ceiling. Conclusions Commonly used speech perception tests for children with CIs are prone to ceiling effects and may not accurately reflect how a child performs in everyday listening situations.

Communication refers to receiving or exchanging ideas, information, signals or messages through appropriate media, enabling individuals or groups to persuade, to seek information, to give information or to express emotions. Communication breakdown or failure occurs when message is not properly perceived and conversation is interrupted. The ability to recognize and repair breakdowns in communication is an important aspect of conversational skill. In hearing impaired population, communication. Numerous western studies explore various aspects of communication breakdown in hearing impaired who are either oral communicators or American Sign Language (ASL) users. Scarcity of researches explicitly showing the use of repair strategies in adult Indian Sign Language (ISL) users exist. Hence present study tried to investigate the use of repair strategies by deaf sign language users while communicating with a hearing communication partner.30 ISL users between 17 - 21 years having severe to profound hearing loss were recruited for the study. Participants did a picture description task, they were asked to describe a picture using ISL to a sign language interpreter. Use of communication repair strategy by deaf participants in response to signed clarification request and facial expression by the interpreter was recorded and was later analyzed. study results evidenced that there was an equal frequency of usage of most of the repair strategies by deaf sign language users in our study. Combination of two or more repair strategies were used by HI population rather than relying on a single strategy. Study also indicated that the most frequently used repair strategy by ISL users is finger spelling, which occurred in combination with other repair strategies. Current study also evidenced that though body language and facial expression are key elements in ISL, the deaf ISL users did not recognize the facial expression by the interpreter as an indicator of communication breakdown.

Historically, the work of Bible translation has involved multiple disciplines in a commitment to translate Scripture with integrity and faithfulness to the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Translating Scripture for primary oral societies has added another dimension to the need for accuracy, beauty and clarity in Scripture translation. It has been widely accepted in Western literate society that the Bible is accessed in written print in the form of a book. For oral-preference societies, such as the nomadic Himba and San peoples of southern Africa, a printed Bible has presented a challenge. Few people read or wish to read as their primary means of communication. In the case of the San family of languages, complex phonemic systems of up to 85 contrastive clicks have presented a challenge in developing ‘readable’ orthographies. This article has highlighted the rationale for oral-based Bible translation. The research aimed to address the translation needs of oral societies – some of whom are nomadic or semi-nomadic people groups. The recent missiological positioning of certain Bible translation practitioners has led to an oral-based approach to Bible translation which validates the cultural identity of modern oral communicators. Orally crafted translations of Scripture passages have been recorded and made available to oral societies through a range of media, including MP3 players, SD cards and mobile phone applications. The effectiveness of oral-based Bible translation among the Himba people has been seen in their response. What began as a three-year pilot project to explore the potential impact of oral-based Scripture among oral societies has led to a unanimous demand for a second three-year phase, and an expressed desire for a full oral-based Bible in the Himba language. The oral-based approach as described is currently used in nearly 20 other oral Bible translation, which reflects a felt need for oral-based Scripture among oral societies in southern Africa.Contribution: Insights from the emerging practice of oral-based Bible translation in southern Africa provide valuable data for missiological approaches to communicating the gospel in the context of modern oral societies.

ABSTRACT This study examines an undergraduate biology instructor’s use of video reflection for promoting students’ development as oral science communicators. After being provided with instruction on how to communicate effectively, students were asked to give scientific oral presentations and reflectively assess their own communicative performance by critically watching video-recordings of themselves. For a considerable portion of students (40.74%), the act of watching a video of themselves led to a change in their self-perceptions. There were slightly more instances of positive change than negative ones (22.22% and 18.52%, respectively). The most self-critical students developed perceptions of themselves that were less negative than before, whereas many students who initially felt badly about their presentations developed more positive self-perceptions after watching the video. In both cases, video reflection led to a more balanced perception of how effectively students presented their selves while giving a scientific oral presentation. It is argued that video reflection can help undergraduate students develop improved self-monitoring and self-regulation during performance of oral scientific presentations, and hence prepare the next generation of scientists to have a more productive professional life.

Abstract This research merges insights from the communications literature with that on the self-brand connection to examine a novel question: how does speaking versus writing about a liked brand influence the communicator’s own later reactions to that brand? Our conceptualization argues that because oral communication involves a greater focus on social interaction with the communication recipient than does written communication, oral communicators are more likely to express self-related thoughts than are writers, thereby increasing their self-brand connection (SBC). We also assess the implications of this conceptualization, including the identification of theoretically derived boundary conditions for the speech/writing difference, and the downstream effects of heightened SBC. Results from five studies provide support for our predictions, informing both the basic literature on communications, and the body of work on consumer word of mouth.

Autism spectrum disorders in 24 children who are deaf or hard of hearing

Teaching discipleship in a theological seminary, one is challenged by the diverse world that students serve. According to a 2004 study conducted for the United Nations by Princeton University (Office of Population Research), approximately 80% of the world's population operated as primarily oral communicators (3.74 billion). Only 2% of the world's population (123 million) was highly literate (e.g., students, staff, and professors at a theological seminary). Anthropologists and missionaries are addressing orality's impact on the teaching–learning process; surprisingly, educators are not. How do professional religious educators prepare students to engage oral cultures in their hometowns and around the world? This article describes the ongoing, transformational process of both a professor and her Western, highly literate classroom. Through the lens of orality, each now affirms and practices new ways of seeing, learning, and teaching.

This paper reports on a clinical trial evaluating outcomes of a frequency-lowering technique for adolescents and young adults with severe to profound hearing impairment. Outcomes were defined by changes in aided thresholds, speech perception, and acceptance. The participants comprised seven young people aged between 13 and 25 years. They were divided into two groups based on their audiometric configuration. The first group consisted of four young people with pure tone thresholds of ≤100 dB at 1 kHz. The second group had more profound hearing loss, with pure tone thresholds of >100 dB at1 kHz. All participants attended the Fundació Widex Audiologia in Barcelona, a charitable foundation offering intervention and habilitation programmes for hearing-impaired children of all ages. The participants were oral communicators integrated into mainstream high schools and universities. All were experienced hearing aid users with excellent spoken language and no other disability. The hearing aids were fitted using standardized procedures and were worn with the frequency transposition algorithm in the first programme for consistent everyday use. Phoneme and word recognition were assessed after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of use and compared with results for their own superpower hearing aids. Subjective comments from both the participants and their parents were recorded throughout the study. Notable improvements were observed in both sound-field-aided thresholds and speech perception after 12 weeks of use, suggesting that frequency lowering can be efficacious in improving speech perception in severely to profoundly hearing-impaired individuals who are past the critical age for language acquisition.

This article illustrates the application of critical literacy (Freire & Macedo, 1987; Gutierrez, 2008; Morrell, 2007) pedagogies that draw from young people’s funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) to actively nurture personally, authentically, and culturally caring relationships (Howard, 2002; Noddings, 1992; Valenzuela, 1999) that reflect a concern for students’ lives. Specifically, it discusses the impact of students performing autoethnographies (Alexander, 2005; Carey-Webb, 2001) “cultural narratives that build toward critical social analysis” as a means toward increasing critical self-reflection and building compassionaterelationships between youth of color with fractured collective identities. Such approaches, as I argue, can tap into youth confusion and anger in order to engage them as critical readers, writers, and oral communicators. The findings suggest that autoethnographies increased students’ knowledge of self and, upon recognizing one another’s all-too-familiar struggles, the classroom climate became more conducive to constructing a critical common identity among youth of color. In this way, the article has implications for building classroom relationships that make for more effective pedagogies engaging dispossessed, working-class children of color with culturally relevant critical literacy teaching practices.

An undergraduate research mentoring program (URMP), initiated at Texas A&M University‐Kingsville, was developed (1) to aid undergraduate wildlife students in the design, conduct, and analysis of original research projects; and (2) to encourage students to become effective written and oral communicators by preparing a manuscript of their research findings for scientific publication and by presenting their original research at professional and lay audience meetings. The efficacy of the URMP was assessed by determining the difference in academic performance and marketability between students in the URMP and a control group, and by a survey of graduates from the program as to their perceived value of the URMP. Fifty undergraduates participated in the program from 1998 to 2003. Among these students, 31 research projects were completed resulting in 18 peer‐reviewed, scientific publications, 15 oral and 28 poster presentations at scientific meetings, and >120 presentations to lay organizations. Students who participated in the URMP had a mean 0.5 grade point improvement from their junior year to graduation compared with students in the control group. In addition, more URMP students graduated with a B.S. degree and also graduated sooner, obtained employment within the wildlife profession sooner, and had greater success obtaining wildlife‐related employment than students of the control group. The URMP was perceived by participants as a positive influence in their academic career, which taught them to focus on their goals and made them more marketable for employment after graduation.

The speech of ten children with hearing loss and ten children without hearing loss aged 12 months is examined. All the children with hearing loss were identified before six months of age, and all have parents who wish them to become oral communicators. The data are from twenty minute sessions with the caregiver and child, with their normal prostheses in place, in semi-structured settings. These data are part of a larger test battery applied to both caregiver and child that is part of a project comparing the development of children with hearing loss to those without hearing loss, known as the Early Development of Children with Hearing Loss. The speech comparisons are in terms of number of utterances, syllable shapes, and segment type. A subset of the data was given a detailed acoustic analysis, including formant frequencies and voice quality measures. [Work supported by NIDCD R01 006237 to Susan Nittrouer.]

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Mar 2005Aural Habilitation Update: The Role of Speech Production Skills of Infants and Children With Hearing Loss Sheila R. Pratt Sheila R. Pratt Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR2.10042005.8 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In It is well known that the development of speech is extremely limited without adequate auditory input and feedback. An obvious example is that hearing loss in infancy and early childhood usually affects all as pects of speech production unless there is early and consistent use of sensory aids as well as substantive sensorimotor and linguistic training. The speech development of infants and children with hearing loss hinges on their abilities to use audition not only to learn the sounds of their language, but also to use their articulators to produce those sounds and make use of auditory feedback to refine their speech over time. As such, the speech of children with prelingual hearing loss is particularly susceptible to delay and disorder, es pecially if the severity of the hearing loss is substantial and intervention is delayed or inadequate. Speech Development During the first six months of life (and possibly in utero) auditory perceptual learning is vital for acquiring oral language and speech, although the maturation timeline for the speech production in normal-hearing children is relatively lengthy. This protracted timeline may account for the long-term training and treatment needs of many children with hearing loss, even those identified and fitted early with sensory aids (Yoshinaga-Itano & Sedey, 2000). Young children with normal hearing typically begin babbling around 5–6 months of age and start verbal expression around 12 months of age. However, their speech production skills continue to be refined through the school-age years and well beyond when their basic phonological inventories have been established. For example, vowel space, voice-onset times, and vocal control adjust throughout early childhood (Assmann & Katz, 2000; Koenig, 2001; Lee, Pontamianos, & Naray anan, 1999). Furthermore, substantial acoustic variability is a hallmark of children’s speech production until late childhood. Although the research is somewhat mixed on the development of coarticulation, children appear to be less able than adults to coarticulate their speech gestures in a consistent manner, and as a consequence, their speech is less intelligible than that of adults (Katz, Kripke, & Tallal, 1991; Nittrouer, 1993). The refinement of auditory processing of speech has a similar developmental timeline. Child ren may apply different rules or weights to speech cues than adults, and these weights change throughout childhood (Nittrouer, 2003; Nit trouer, Crowther, & Miller, 1998). Their auditory processing of speech also appears to be more susceptible to acoustic and linguistic perturbations than is observed with adults. Children are more adversely affected than adults by background noise, reverberation, talker variability, re ductions in signal bandwidth, and the number of signal channels (Eisenberg et al., 2000; Ryalls & Pisoni, 1997; Kortekaas & Stelmachowicz, 2000). The Role of Audition in Speech Development and Production For mature speakers, audition acts as an error detector and a means of monitoring speaking conditions. It is considered to be slower than other forms of sensory information (i.e., proprioception) generated during speech, and therefore is likely limited to a feedback role (Perkell et al., 1997). Speakers use audition to determine if their articulators have produced sounds that are acoustically off-target. Audition also provides information for corrective adjustments, and as a consequence, is a contributor to the maintenance of speech integrity. Studies of frequency and spectrally shifted speech feedback have shown that adults rapidly adjust to minor acoustic perturbations with compensatory and/or matching strategies (Bauer & Larson, 2003; Houde & Jordan, 2002; Jones & Munhall, 2002, 2003). They appear to adjust their articulators so that their speech productions match their internal representations. In addition to acting as an error detector, hearing is used by mature speakers to determine how they should adjust their speech in various acoustic, linguistic, and social environments. For example, adults know when to speak slower, louder, softer, or more precisely in order to accommodate their listener or the environmental conditions (Perkell et al., 1997). In contrast, many young children are unable to adjust the clarity of their speech, even when explicitly directed to do so (Ide-Helvie et al., 2004). Audition also allows the development of articulatory organization by providing information about how to position, move, and coordinate the articulators for speech, movements that can differ from those associated with vegetative functions of the mechanisms (Moore & Ruark, 1996). For ex ample, infants use audition to learn how to shift from a vegetative breathing pattern to a pattern that can support speech. They learn how to position and move their tongues and to judge the acoustic consequences of those gestures. Coord ination of the larynx with the vocal tract and upper airway articulators is refined over years but requires an intact auditory system (Koenig, 2001; Tye-Murray, 1992). The lip and jaw movements associated with speech in infants and young children are highly variable but distinct from sucking, chewing, and smiling (Green et al., 2000; Green, Moore, & Reilly, 2002; Moore & Ruark, 1996). The implication is that although the same peripheral mechanisms are used across oral and respiratory functions, the differing goals require substantially distinct coordination and feedback efforts. The coordination needed to chew and swallow efficiently develops over early childhood but is largely independent of hearing, whereas the coordination required to move between vowel and consonant gestures, particularly in a coordinated and coarticulated manner, is strongly influenced by hearing (Baum & Waldstein, 1991; Guenther, 1995; Tye-Murray, 1992; Waldstein & Baum, 1991). Audition has a primary sensorimotor role in the development of speech, but it also is fundamental to infants and young children learning the sounds of their language. Furthermore, it helps them learn how specific speech events relate to their phonology, so that with development, young children become more able to use their hearing to inform them about the sequencing of speech gestures and the correctness of subsequent productions. Over time children learn to use audition to monitor ongoing speech, detect errors, and make corrective adjustments. Hearing Loss and Speech Production Hearing loss is common in the general population but its effects on speech production are most pronounced with individuals whose hearing loss is congenital or acquired in early childhood. Most adults who acquire their hearing losses later in life suffer little or no deterioration in intelligibility, likely because their residual hearing provides sufficient feedback since their mature speech production systems rely more on orosensory than auditory information to maintain proper control (Guenther, 1995; Goehl & Kaufman, 1984; Perkell et al., 1997). The speech differences that they do exhibit are subtle and usually imperceptible, even in cases of complete or nearly complete adventitious hearing loss. Nonetheless, some adventitiously deafened adults exhibit reduced speaking rate, and compromised articulatory and phonatory precision (Kishon-Rabin et al., 1999; Lane & Webster, 1991; Lane et al., 1995; Leder et al., 1987; Waldstein, 1990; Perkell et al., 1992). These speech differences are similar in nature, but not in severity, to those observed with prelingually deafened speakers. Most infants and young children with hearing loss demonstrate disordered phonation and articulation, as well as delays in the acquisition of sound categories. The entire speech production system can be affected, from respiratory support to the coarticulation of ongoing speech (Pratt & Tye-Murray, 1997). This is especially true if the hearing loss is identified late or after a period of protracted hearing loss. Furthermore, the overlap and interaction of disordered sound production and linguistic delay contribute to poor speech integrity and restricted speech development. Babbling generally does not appear before 12 months of age (Oller & Eilers, 1988; Oller et al., 1985) and canonical babbling has been observed as late as 31 months in this population (Lynch, Oller, & Steffens, 1989). Infants also produce fewer instances of canonical babble and include a more limited range of consonants in their babble (Stoel-Gammon, 1988; Stoel-Gammon & Otomo, 1986; Wallace, Menn, & Yoshinaga-Itano, 2000). However, later speech intelligibility is better predicted by the consonant inventory used in emerging spoken language during the second year of life than during babble (Obenchain, Menn, & Yoshinaga-Itano, 2000). The phonetic repertoires of infants with severe-to-profound hearing loss often are restricted when compared to their normal-hearing peers, although there is abundant individual variability (Lach, Ling, Ling & Ship, 1970; Stoel-Gammon & Otomo, 1986; Wallace et al., 2000; Yoshinaga-Itano & Sedey, 2000). The early speech inventories of infants with severe-to-profound hearing loss predominately consist of motorically easy sounds such as vowels and bilabial consonants. The sounds of their inventories also contain more low frequency information, which is more audible. For example, the babbling of infants with hearing loss often has a high concentration of nasals and glides, which include low-frequency continuant cues (Stoel-Gammon & Otomo, 1986). Without early intervention and appropriate fitting of sensory aids the speech-sound inventories of many children with hearing loss usually do not attain full maturity. Yoshinaga-Itano and Sedey (2000) found that children with moderate-to-severe hearing losses did not reach an age-appropriate complement of vowel and consonant sounds until about 4 and 5 years respectively, and many children with profound hearing loss had restricted inventories even at 5 years of age. Children with profound hearing loss often reach an early plateau in their speech skill development. For instance, the speech characteristics of many children with severe-to-profound hearing loss demonstrate little improvement in sound inventory and intelligibility after 8 years of age, even with the initiation of extensive training (Hudgins & Number, 1942, McGarr, 1987; Smith, 1975). Such results imply that, like auditory and language interventions, speech production therapy should be an important component of early intervention, and that the common practice of delaying speech training in children with hearing loss until they have functional language is developmentally untenable if the goal is for them to be oral communicators. In addition to the relationship between age-of-onset and speech impairment severity, there also is a moderately positive relationship between the severity of hearing loss and the extent of the associated speech difficulties (Boothroyd, 1969; Levitt, 1987; Smith, 1975). For example, children with mild-to-moderate hearing loss, particularly if well aided, tend to exhibit speech differences that are mild (Elfenbein, Hardin-Jones, & Davis, 1994; Oller & Kelly, 1974; West & Weber, 1973). Elfenbein and colleagues found that children with mild-to-moderate hearing loss exhibit good intelligibility but had higher than normal rates of affricate and fricative substitutions. Mild hoarseness and resonance problems also are present in 20% to 30% of this group of children. Moreover, they tend to have increased rates of voicing irregularities, difficulties with /r/ production, and omissions of back and word-final consonants. Early studies of children with profound prelingual hearing loss showed that most rarely acquired speech skills sufficient to interact easily using spoken language. On average, less than 20% of their words were intelligible to listeners who were not familiar with their speech (Hidgins & Numbers 1942; Markides, 1970; Smith, 1975). Smith (1975) evaluated 40 children with varying levels of hearing loss and, on average, only 18.7% (0% to 76%) of their words could be identified by inexperienced listeners. As expected, overall intelligibility was inversely related to the frequency of segmental and suprasegmental errors. However, with early identification of hearing loss and early intervention (i.e., fitting of sensory devices, behavioral training, and parent counseling), the numbers of children with severe-to-profound hearing loss and intelligible speech has increased (Uchanski & Geers, 2003). Many more children are developing sufficient speech perception to support development of speech production and oral language, but these advances may have added to the overall heterogeneity of the population (Higgins et al., 2003). Other factors contribute to the diversity of speech production skills observed with these children. For instance, cognitive skill (particularly nonverbal intelligence) has been found to be an important predictor of functional speech and oral language in children with hearing loss (Geers et al., 2002; Tobey et al., 2003). Auditory experience in infancy and early childhood, even of limited duration, positively influences the speech production skills of children who have severe-to-profound hearing loss (Geers, 2004). The use of sensory aids has a substantial impact on speech outcomes, but somewhat surprisingly, the age at which infants and young children are fitted with cochlear implants has not surfaced in studies of speech production as a significant predictor of later speech intelligibility (Geers et al., 2002; Tobey et al., 2003). Early implantation (less than 2 years) is, however, related to more normal oral communication development as a whole (both speech and oral language) (Geers, 2004). It may be that the age of implantation is not easily separated from other influences of intervention, like the orientation of the habilitation program and parent involvement, which relate strongly to children being auditory perceptual learners and users of auditory feedback. Another consideration is that many early-implanted children may be implanted too late to observe a clear impact on speech production. The critical ages at which hearing aids should be fitted has not been investigated, but like cochlear implants, it is assumed that earlier is better. The oromotor integrity and language skills are additional factors that often are neglected in studies of speech development in children with hearing loss. A substantial number of infants and children with hearing loss present with secondary handicapping conditions, such as neurological disorders. When these neurological disorders include the speech mechanism, the development of functional speech is difficult even if audition is optimized. As such, is it not unusual for a child with hearing loss to have a coexisting dysarthria along with the speech impairment secondary to the hearing loss. A subset of children with hearing loss also may have an apraxia of speech, but separating the impact of hearing loss from an apraxia of speech is difficult because the associated speech characteristics overlap (McNeil, Robin & Schmidt, 1997). Language disorders also are commonly observed in children with hearing loss, and are frequently evidenced in phonological disorder and lexical delay. As a result, extricating the sensorimotor impact of hearing loss on speech production from the influences of language disorder in individual children is not always straightforward (Peng et al., 2004). Habilitation: Sensory Aids and Treatment Most speech training approaches are dependent on optimizing the use of residual hearing although some approaches use other modalities (Pratt, Heintzelman, & Deming, 1993; Pratt & Tye-Murray, 1997). Correspondingly, it is generally believed that speech is learned most easily if infants and children learn and monitor their speech through their auditory systems. Therefore, the proper and early fitting, and consistent use of sensory aids, along with auditory and language training are important components of speech production training. In support of this auditory-based approach is the relationship between the severity of prelingual hearing loss and the extent of speech delay/disorder found in children (Boothroyd, 1969; Levitt, 1987; Smith, 1975), as well as any history of previous hearing (Geers, 2004). The relationship between audiometric configuration and speech intelligibility also argues for the importance of audition if the goal for a child is oral communication (Levitt, 1987; Osberger, Maso, & Sam, 1993). There is a growing literature supporting the positive impact of cochlear implants on speech development, as well as the role that auditory-oral-based training programs play in communication outcomes of children fitted with cochlear implants (Geers et al., 2002; Tobey et al., 2003). There is, however, limited efficacy data for children with less severe hearing loss who are typically fitted with hearing aids. The lack of research in this area is glaring because wearable electroacoustic hearing aids have been available for more than 50 years (Lybarger, 1988) and are a fundamental component of treatment approaches for most children with hearing loss. Furthermore, more infants and children are fitted with hearing aids than cochlear implants. Preliminary data reported by Stemachowicz and her colleagues (2004) on three infants fitted early with hearing aids suggested delays in sound category acquisition consistent with patterns previously reported in the literature. Sound inventories were impoverished, consonants were more affected than vowels, and sound containing high-frequency cues were particularly limited. Additional data by Pittman and colleagues (2003) observed that the amplitude of high-frequency speech cues directed to and produced by children wearing hearing aids may not be sufficient, although they did not connect their results directly to speech production outcomes. Pratt, Grayhack, Palmer, and Sabo (2003) found that differences in hearing aid configuration could alter vowel spacing of children even though the children in their study had intelligible speech, and the speech tokens measured were limited to acceptable productions. Their data indicated that hearing aids could alter the speech of children, but provided little information about the impact that hearing aids may have on speech development. Given the paucity of data-as well as the expansion of universal infant hearing screening programs-it is critical that more research be done in this area. Increasing numbers of infants with hearing loss will be identified shortly after birth and, if we are to effectively treat them, more should be known about the impact that hearing aids and other sensory aids have on speech and auditory system development. Aural Habilitation References Assmann P. F., & Katz W. F. (2000). Time-varying spectral change in the vowels of children and adults.Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 108, 1856–1866. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Baum S., & Waldstein R. (1991). Perseveratory coarticulation in the speech of profoundly hearing-impaired and normally hearing children.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1286–1292. LinkGoogle Scholar Bauer J. J., & Larson C. R. (2003). Audio-vocal responses to repetitive pitch-shift stimulation during a sustained vocalization: Improvements in methodology for the pitch-shifting technique.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1048–1054. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Boothroyd A. (1969). Distribution of hearing levels in the student population of the Clarke School for the Deaf. Northampton, MA: Clarke School for the Deaf. Google Scholar Elfenbein J., Hardin-Jones M., & Davis J. (1994). Oral communication skills of children who are hard of hearing.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 216–226. LinkGoogle Scholar Eisenberg L., Shannon R., Martinez A. S., & Wygonski J. (2000). Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 2704–2710. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Geers A., Brenner C., Nicholas J., Uchanski R., Tye-Murray N., & Tobey E. (2002). Rehabilitation factors contributing to implant benefit in children.Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology—Supplement, 189, 127–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Goehl H., & Kaufman D. (1984). the effects of adventitious include disordered of Speech and Hearing LinkGoogle Scholar J. R., Moore C. A., M., & R. W. (2000). The development of speech and jaw of & Hearing Research, LinkGoogle Scholar J. R., Moore C. A., & J. (2002). The development of jaw and lip control for of and Hearing Research, LinkGoogle Scholar F. Speech sound coarticulation, and effects in a of speech CrossrefGoogle Scholar E. A., A. & (2003). in children’s speech and after cochlear and CrossrefGoogle Scholar Houde J. F., & of speech and of and Hearing Research, LinkGoogle Scholar C., & Numbers F. An of the intelligibility of speech of the Google Scholar D. L., W. A., C., A. J., & used to speech clarity by normal-hearing children.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, CrossrefGoogle Scholar Jones J. A., & (2002). The role of auditory feedback during Studies of of CrossrefGoogle Scholar Jones J. A., & (2003). to produce speech with an vocal The role of auditory of the Acoustical Society of America, CrossrefGoogle Scholar Katz W. F., C., & P. (1991). coarticulation in the speech of adults and young perceptual and of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, LinkGoogle Scholar L., R., & The of hearing on speech production of deafened adults with cochlear of the Acoustical Society of America, CrossrefGoogle Scholar characteristics of in children’s and of developmental of Speech and Hearing Research, LinkGoogle Scholar Kortekaas R., & P. (2000). effects on children’s perception of the Acoustical auditory and clarity of and Hearing Research, LinkGoogle Scholar R., Ling Ling L., & Early speech development in of the Google Scholar Lane H., & J. W. (1991). Speech deterioration in deafened adults.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, CrossrefGoogle Scholar Lane H., J., M., M., & Perkell J. in the speech of cochlear implant An of of the Acoustical Society of America, CrossrefGoogle Scholar Leder S., J., J. C., C., & F. of adventitiously cochlear implant of the Acoustical Society of CrossrefGoogle Scholar S., A., & Acoustic of children’s of and spectral of the Acoustical Society of America, CrossrefGoogle Scholar the speech and language H., N., & D. Development of language and communication skills of hearing-impaired children. ASHA Google Scholar A R. of hearing aid MA: Google Scholar M., Oller & Development of in a child with congenital of The of CrossrefGoogle Scholar skills of hearing-impaired children in for the H., N., & D. Development of language & communication in hearing children. ASHA Google Scholar R., Robin D. A., & R. A. of and of sensorimotor speech disorders Google Scholar A. The speech of and hearing children with to factors of of CrossrefGoogle Scholar Moore C. A., & J. speech from earlier oral of Speech and Hearing Research, LinkGoogle Scholar (2002). to fricative perception and how it the of the Acoustical Society of America, CrossrefGoogle Scholar S., C. S., & E. The of acoustic in the perception of by children and & CrossrefGoogle Scholar L., & Yoshinaga-Itano C. (2000). speech development at months in children with hearing loss be predicted from information available in the second year of Google Scholar Oller R., & A. of a A with normal of Speech and Hearing Research, LinkGoogle Scholar Oller & C. of a of Speech and Hearing LinkGoogle Scholar J., M., & Speech intelligibility of children with cochlear implants, aids, or hearing of Speech and Hearing Research, LinkGoogle Scholar S., A. L., H., & production and language skills in children with cochlear of and CrossrefGoogle Scholar Perkell J., Lane H., M., & J. Speech of cochlear implant A study of vowel of the Acoustical Society of America, CrossrefGoogle Scholar Perkell J. S., L., Lane H., F. H., R., J., & P. Speech Acoustic auditory feedback and internal CrossrefGoogle Scholar Pittman A. L., Stemachowicz P. D. & (2003). characteristics of speech at the for in children.Journal of and Hearing Research, LinkGoogle Scholar Pratt R., A. & E. The efficacy of using the to treat young children with hearing of Speech and Hearing Research, LinkGoogle Scholar Pratt R., & Tye-Murray A. Speech impairment secondary to hearing of sensorimotor speech disorders Google Scholar Smith C. hearing and speech production in the of Speech and Hearing Research, LinkGoogle Scholar P. Pittman A. L., M., D. & P. The importance of high-frequency in the speech and language development of children with hearing of and CrossrefGoogle Scholar Stoel-Gammon C. of hearing-impaired & normally hearing A of of Speech and Hearing LinkGoogle Scholar Stoel-Gammon C., & Babbling development of hearing-impaired and normally hearing of Speech and Hearing LinkGoogle Scholar Tobey E. A., Geers A. Brenner C., & (2003). associated with development of speech production skills in children implanted by age and CrossrefGoogle Scholar Uchanski R. M., & Geers A. E. (2003). Acoustic characteristics of the speech of young cochlear implant A with normal-hearing and CrossrefGoogle Scholar Waldstein R. of on speech for the role of auditory of the Acoustical Society of America, CrossrefGoogle Scholar Waldstein R., & Baum (1991). coarticulation in the speech of profoundly hearing-impaired and normally hearing children.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, LinkGoogle Scholar Wallace L., & Yoshinaga-Itano C. (2000). babble the to speech for all A study of children who are or hard of Google Scholar Sheila R. Pratt, is in the of & at the of her at With With Additional to in Mar &

Benefits of cochlear implantation in pre-lingual adult users: oral and manual communicators

"Benefits of cochlear implantation in pre-lingual adult users: oral and manual communicators." Cochlear Implants International, 4(sup1), pp. 75–76

This article provides an overview of the workings of an oral school for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. The key features of the school include low student-teacher ratios, teachers who are trained as oral educators of deaf children, ongoing staff and parent education, specialized curricula, and a strong emphasis on listening and speaking throughout the day. Approximately 75% of the students at the school use cochlear implants; the remainder wear hearing aids. The graduates of this program have shown that an oral school can help many children who are deaf or hard of hearing achieve success as oral communicators and students in mainstream classrooms.

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the use of the frequency transposition Transonic FT 40 system in a group of 36 children with profound sensorineural hearing loss. The group comprised 36 children (11 boys, 25 girls) aged between 2.8 and 15.6 years (mean 7.6 years) at fitting of the FT 40 device. At 48 months post-FT 40 fitting, only 11 children (30%) were still wearing the device. The children discontinued wearing the FT 40 for the following reasons: ergonomic (11%); no perceived benefit from the system (11%); cosmetic (17%); and subsequent cochlear implantation (30%). The performance of the long-term FT 40 users was investigated using the following outcome measures: aided soundfield hearing thresholds: closed set speech tests (the E2L toy test and the Manchester Picture Test discrimination test) and a speech intelligibility rating score. The 11 long-term FT 40 users (three boys, eight girls) were aged from 5.3 to 12.9 years (mean 7.2 years) at the time of initial fitting of the FT 40 device. At time of fitting, the aided soundfield thresholds with the FT 40 were significantly better at 500 Hz (p<0.04), 1 kHz (p<0.019), 2 kHz (p<0.001) and 4 kHz (p <0.001) compared to thresholds with conventional hearing aids. Six of 11 children did not show any change in performance on the closed set speech tests and two children had intelligible speech at 48 months' follow-up. A small subgroup of good performers was identified. These children were younger at age of fitting (mean 6.2 years compared to a mean of 7.7 years for the remainder of the group), were predominantly oral communicators and had identified aetiologies for their deafness. The present study suggests that there is a small subgroup of hearing-impaired children who benefit from frequency transposition hearing systems, and future suggested fitting criteria and outcome measures are listed.

The views of children toward literacy can provide insight into the relationship between areas of reading and communication abilities and suggest possibilities for classroom language intervention and the use of written materials. This investigation examined differences in the opinions of fourth-grade readers with good and poor reading skills. Interviews were conducted with 270 fourth-grade students, 142 above average (AAR) readers and 128 below average (BAR) readers. Data analysis revealed significant differences between the two groups of readers on nine of 22 questions. The subjects accurately identified themselves as good or poor readers. The AAR group reported understanding more of what they read, whereas the BAR group reported problems in comprehending written information. As oral communicators, the AARs reported talking more and being understood more often when they talked than the BARs. Significant differences were found between the AAR and BAR groups regarding how often they read at home by themselves and how often they read for fun. However, no differences existed between the groups in their opinions of the value and importance of reading.

This paper cites instances which point to the conclusion that speakers of non-literary languages have an innate feel for the need of different styles to be used for oral versus written modes. One implication of this is the necessity of starting literacy programs early in the life of a translation project, so that emerging mother tongue writers and editors have time to develop an acceptable written style, which can then be reflected in the translation. However it is also true that the majority of speakers of minority languages in the Third World are basically oral communicators, and in many cases are indifferent to or even resistant to literacy. But the answer does not seem to lie in considering oral versus written styles, but asking how we can best combine oral and written modes to communicate most effectively to our audience(s).