PURPOSE: Common wisdom suggests that listening in noise poses disproportionately greater difficulty for listeners with cochlear implants (CIs) than for peers with normal hearing (NH). The purpose of this study was to examine phonological, language, and cognitive skills that might help explain speech-in-noise abilities for children with CIs. METHOD: Three groups of kindergartners (NH, hearing aid wearers, and CI users) were tested on speech recognition in quiet and noise and on tasks thought to underlie the abilities that fit into the domains of phonological awareness, general language, and cognitive skills. These last measures were used as predictor variables in regression analyses with speech-in-noise scores as dependent variables. RESULTS: Compared to children with NH, children with CIs did not perform as well on speech recognition in noise or on most other measures, including recognition in quiet. Two surprising results were that (a) noise effects were consistent across groups and (b) scores on other measures did not explain any group differences in speech recognition. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations of implant processing take their primary toll on recognition in quiet and account for poor speech recognition and language/phonological deficits in children with CIs. Implications are that teachers/clinicians need to teach language/phonology directly and maximize signal-to-noise levels in the classroom.
PURPOSE: Common wisdom suggests that listening in noise poses disproportionately greater difficulty for listeners with cochlear implants (CIs) than for peers with normal hearing (NH). The purpose of this study was to examine phonological, language, and cognitive skills that might help explain speech-in-noise abilities for children with CIs. METHOD: Three groups of kindergartners (NH, hearing aid wearers, and CI users) were tested on speech recognition in quiet and noise and on tasks thought to underlie the abilities that fit into the domains of phonological awareness, general language, and cognitive skills. These last measures were used as predictor variables in regression analyses with speech-in-noise scores as dependent variables. RESULTS: Compared to children with NH, children with CIs did not perform as well on speech recognition in noise or on most other measures, including recognition in quiet. Two surprising results were that (a) noise effects were consistent across groups and (b) scores on other measures did not explain any group differences in speech recognition. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations of implant processing take their primary toll on recognition in quiet and account for poor speech recognition and language/phonological deficits in children with CIs. Implications are that teachers/clinicians need to teach language/phonology directly and maximize signal-to-noise levels in the classroom.
Authors: Jill B Firszt; Laura K Holden; Margaret W Skinner; Emily A Tobey; Ann Peterson; Wolfgang Gaggl; Christina L Runge-Samuelson; P Ashley Wackym Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: William G Kronenberger; Jessica Beer; Irina Castellanos; David B Pisoni; Richard T Miyamoto Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Susan Nittrouer; Amanda Caldwell-Tarr; Eric Tarr; Joanna H Lowenstein; Caitlin Rice; Aaron C Moberly Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Ferenc Bunta; C Elizabeth Goodin-Mayeda; Amanda Procter; Arturo Hernandez Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 2.297