DISCUSSION•As the children gained experience with their implants, their words became longer and closer to the adult target. They also attempted longer words.•Additional study is clearly needed. The current findings should however be interpreted quite cautiously for at least two reasons:•1. The current analysis was based on all available words and sample size varied considerably – Ingram and Ingram suggested a consistent sample size (specifically 25 words).•2. The current analysis included both content and function words. Ingram and Ingram suggested only focusing on content words.

REFERENCES•Ingram, D., & Ingram, K. D. (2001). A whole-word approach to phonological analysis and intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 271-283.•Shriberg, L. D., & Kent, R. D. (2003). Clinical Phonetics (Third Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.•Shriberg, L. D., Allen, C. T., McSweeny, J. L., & Wilson, D. L. (2001). PEPPER: Programs to examine phonetic and phonologic evaluation records [Computer Program]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Emergence of PWP & PMLU in Children with Cochlear ImplantsPeter Flipsen Jr., Ph.D. & Erin Harty, M.S. Idaho State University

INTRODUCTION• Ingram and Ingram (2001) proposed a change

in focus from individual sounds to the whole word level and suggested several new measures for this purpose.

• The current study examined two of their proposed measures (PMLU, PWP) using speech production data from two groups of children with cochlear implants.

METHODParticipants• Group 1 were six children from a longitudinal

study who had been fitted with cochlear implants between 1;8 and 3;0 (Mn = 2;4).

• Had 23 - 42 months of implant experience at initial testing (Mn = 32 months) and 36-61 months (Mn = 50 months) of implant experience at final testing.

• Group 2 included 17 children from a cross-sectional study who had been fitted with cochlear implants between 1;2 and 8;4 (Mn = 3;9).

• Had 12-94 months of implant experience at time of testing (Mn = 51 months).

• NOTE: 5 children were part of both groups.Speech Samples• Conversational speech samples were recorded

in a sound booth using digital audiotape and a table-top microphone.

METHOD (cont’d)•Group 1 was recorded every 3 months for 12-21 months yielding 40 samples (5-8 per child). For group 2 only one sample was recorded.•Samples were transcribed using narrow phonetic transcription (Shriberg & Kent, 2003) and analyzed using Programs to Evaluate Phonetic and Phonologic Evaluation Records (PEPPER; Shriberg et al., 2001).•Performance on consonant accuracy (PCC) and intelligibility were obtained using PEPPER software.Whole Word Analysis•First occurrence of all words in the transcripts were used for both PMLU and PWP analyses. Samples included 38-235 words (Mn = 143; SD = 38).•Phonological Mean Length of Utterance (PMLU) was computed as:• 1 point for each phoneme attempted and 1 extra point for each correct consonant. •Proportion of Whole-Word Proximity (PWP) = the ratio of the child’s PMLU to the target PMLU for each word. •PMLU and PWP were calculated by the second author relative to both a broad transcription and a narrow transcription standard.

RESULTS

• Group 1 were all implanted by age 3 years. Group 2 included children with much later implantation.

• The variables were about equally likely to be correlated with implant experience across the two groups.

Attempting Longer Words?

• For Group 2 which included a wide range of ages and implant experience, mean PMLU of the target words was significantly correlated with both age (.652) and implant experience (.651).

• Over time the children appeared to be attempting longer words.

PWP and Intelligibility

• Ingram and Ingram (2001) suggested that PWP may be a useful index of intelligibility as it is ratio of the child’s production to the ideal target.

• For the groups combined, Intelligibility was significantly correlated with both PWP-b and PWP-n (.765 &.746 ).

• However, the corresponding correlation between Intelligibility and PCC was .744 (p < .05) which involves a simpler calculation.

Acknowledgments Many thanks to Julie Beeler, Velvet Buehler, Molly Erickson, Kristen Hannifan, Mark Hedrick, Marge Hudson, Gayla Hutsell, Kim Jenkins, Leslie Jolles, and Saneta Thurman for their assistance with this study. Special thanks to Lana Colvard, Michelle LaGesse, and Rhonda Parker for participant testing and to Lisa Moss and Joel Blaiss for transcribing the conversational speech samples. Many thanks also to the children who participated and their parents.

ASHA Convention, 2011 San Diego, CA

RESULTS

•Overall performance on each of the measures is shown in Table 1.

•Considerable variability was in evidence on all of the measures for both groups.

Developmental Trends

•See Table 2. (ns = not significant).

•The variables were more likely to be significantly correlated with age for Group 1 than for Group 2.

  Phonological Mean Length of UtterancePMLU-b PMLU-n

Group 1 3.78-6.29 (Mn = 5.08) 3.74-6.29 (Mn = 5.04)Group 2 3.29-6.09 (Mn = 5.00) 3.21-6.07 (Mn = 4.85)  Proximity to Adult Model

PWP-b PWP-nGroup 1 0.71-0.98 (Mn = 0.91) 0.70-0.98 (Mn = 0.90)Group 2 0.69-0.98 (Mn = 0.89) 0.67-0.98 (Mn = 0.86)  PEPPER Variables  Percentage Consonants Correct Intelligibility Group 1 47.01-94.43 (Mn = 81.80) 65.61-96.46 (Mn = 85.73)Group 2 51.30-95.58 (Mn = 74.43) 52.68-97.78 (Mn = 83.21)

Table 1. Group results for each variable

Table 2. Correlations between speech production and developmental variables

  Age Implant ExperienceGroup 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2

PMLU-b .370 .505 ns .616PMLU-n .352 ns ns .646PWP-b .465 ns .381 nsPWP-n .441 ns .358 .530PCC .492 ns .380 .573Intelligibility .415 ns ns .634