Michaela Socher, Elias Ingebrand, Malin Wass, Björn Lyxell
{"title":"The relationship between reasoning and language ability: comparing children with cochlear implants and children with typical hearing.","authors":"Michaela Socher, Elias Ingebrand, Malin Wass, Björn Lyxell","doi":"10.1080/14015439.2020.1834613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Language has been suggested to play a facilitating role for analogical reasoning tasks, especially for those with high complexity. This study aims to evaluate if differences in analogical reasoning ability between children with cochlear implants (CI) and children with typical hearing (TH) might be explained by differences in language ability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The analogical reasoning ability (verbal; non-verbal; complex non-verbal: high relational integration demand) of children with CI (<i>N</i> = 15, mean age = 6;7) was compared to two groups of children with TH: age and language matched (TH-A+L, <i>N</i> = 23, mean age = 6;5), and age matched (TH-A, <i>N</i> = 23, mean age = 6;5).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Children with CI were found to perform comparable to Group TH-A+L on non-verbal reasoning tasks but significantly more poorly on a verbal analogical reasoning task. Children with CI were found to perform significantly more poorly on both the non-verbal analogical reasoning task with high relational integration demand and on the verbal analogical reasoning task compared to Group TH-A. For the non-verbal analogical reasoning task with lower relational integration demand only a tendency for a difference between group CI and Group TH-A was found.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results suggest that verbal strategies are influencing the performance on the non-verbal analogical reasoning tasks with a higher relational integration demand. The possible reasons for this are discussed. The verbal analogical reasoning task used in the current study partly measured lexical access. Differences between the children with CI and both groups of children with TH might therefore be explained by differences in expressive vocabulary skills.</p>","PeriodicalId":49903,"journal":{"name":"Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14015439.2020.1834613","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14015439.2020.1834613","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/11/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Purpose: Language has been suggested to play a facilitating role for analogical reasoning tasks, especially for those with high complexity. This study aims to evaluate if differences in analogical reasoning ability between children with cochlear implants (CI) and children with typical hearing (TH) might be explained by differences in language ability.
Methods: The analogical reasoning ability (verbal; non-verbal; complex non-verbal: high relational integration demand) of children with CI (N = 15, mean age = 6;7) was compared to two groups of children with TH: age and language matched (TH-A+L, N = 23, mean age = 6;5), and age matched (TH-A, N = 23, mean age = 6;5).
Results: Children with CI were found to perform comparable to Group TH-A+L on non-verbal reasoning tasks but significantly more poorly on a verbal analogical reasoning task. Children with CI were found to perform significantly more poorly on both the non-verbal analogical reasoning task with high relational integration demand and on the verbal analogical reasoning task compared to Group TH-A. For the non-verbal analogical reasoning task with lower relational integration demand only a tendency for a difference between group CI and Group TH-A was found.
Conclusions: The results suggest that verbal strategies are influencing the performance on the non-verbal analogical reasoning tasks with a higher relational integration demand. The possible reasons for this are discussed. The verbal analogical reasoning task used in the current study partly measured lexical access. Differences between the children with CI and both groups of children with TH might therefore be explained by differences in expressive vocabulary skills.
目的:语言被认为在类比推理任务中起着促进作用,特别是对于那些高复杂性的任务。本研究旨在探讨人工耳蜗植入儿童(CI)与正常听力儿童(TH)类比推理能力的差异是否可以用语言能力的差异来解释。方法:类比推理能力(言语;非语言;将CI患儿(N = 15,平均年龄= 6;7)与年龄语言匹配组(TH- a +L, N = 23,平均年龄= 6;5)和年龄匹配组(TH- a, N = 23,平均年龄= 6;5)进行比较。结果:CI儿童在非语言推理任务中的表现与TH-A+L组相当,但在语言类比推理任务中的表现明显较差。与TH-A组相比,CI儿童在具有高关系整合需求的非语言类比推理任务和语言类比推理任务上的表现都明显较差。对于关系整合需求较低的非言语类比推理任务,仅在CI组和TH-A组之间存在差异趋势。结论:言语策略对关系整合要求较高的非言语类比推理任务的表现有影响。讨论了可能的原因。本研究中使用的言语类比推理任务部分测量了词汇获取。因此,CI儿童与两组TH儿童之间的差异可以用表达性词汇技能的差异来解释。
期刊介绍:
Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology is an amalgamation of the former journals Scandinavian Journal of Logopedics & Phoniatrics and VOICE.
The intention is to cover topics related to speech, language and voice pathology as well as normal voice function in its different aspects. The Journal covers a wide range of topics, including:
Phonation and laryngeal physiology
Speech and language development
Voice disorders
Clinical measurements of speech, language and voice
Professional voice including singing
Bilingualism
Cleft lip and palate
Dyslexia
Fluency disorders
Neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics
Aphasia
Motor speech disorders
Voice rehabilitation of laryngectomees
Augmentative and alternative communication
Acoustics
Dysphagia
Publications may have the form of original articles, i.e. theoretical or methodological studies or empirical reports, of reviews of books and dissertations, as well as of short reports, of minor or ongoing studies or short notes, commenting on earlier published material. Submitted papers will be evaluated by referees with relevant expertise.