↓ Skip to main content

Training to Improve Language Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Training to Improve Language Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00263
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erin M. Ingvalson, Patrick C. M. Wong

Abstract

Cochlear implants (CI) have brought with them hearing ability for many prelingually deafened children. Advances in CI technology have brought not only hearing ability but speech perception to these same children. Concurrent with the development of speech perception has come spoken language development, and one goal now is that prelingually deafened CI recipient children will develop spoken language capabilities on par with those of normal hearing (NH) children. This goal has not been met purely on the basis of the technology, and many CI recipient children lag behind their NH peers with large variability in outcomes, requiring further behavioral intervention. It is likely that CI recipient children struggle to develop spoken language at NH-like levels because they have deficits in both auditory and cognitive skills that underlie the development of language. Fortunately, both the auditory and cognitive training literature indicate an improvement of auditory and cognitive functioning following training. It therefore stands to reason that if training improves the auditory and cognitive skills that support language learning, language development itself should also improve. In the present manuscript we will review the auditory and cognitive training and their potential impact on speech outcomes with an emphasis on the speech perception literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 123 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 20%
Student > Master 21 17%
Researcher 16 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Professor 7 6%
Other 29 23%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Neuroscience 12 9%
Linguistics 7 6%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 28 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2013.
All research outputs
#17,689,426
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,223
of 29,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,173
of 280,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#756
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,736 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.