OBJECTIVE: This study examined speech recognition in noise for children with hearing loss, compared it to recognition for children with normal hearing, and examined mechanisms that might explain variance in children's abilities to recognize speech in noise. DESIGN: Word recognition was measured in two levels of noise, both when the speech and noise were co-located in front and when the noise came separately from one side. Four mechanisms were examined as factors possibly explaining variance: vocabulary knowledge, sensitivity to phonological structure, binaural summation, and head shadow. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants were 113 eight-year-old children. Forty-eight had normal hearing (NH) and 65 had hearing loss: 18 with hearing aids (HAs), 19 with one cochlear implant (CI), and 28 with two CIs. RESULTS: Phonological sensitivity explained a significant amount of between-groups variance in speech-in-noise recognition. Little evidence of binaural summation was found. Head shadow was similar in magnitude for children with NH and with CIs, regardless of whether they wore one or two CIs. Children with HAs showed reduced head shadow effects. CONCLUSION: These outcomes suggest that in order to improve speech-in-noise recognition for children with hearing loss, intervention needs to be comprehensive, focusing on both language abilities and auditory mechanisms.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined speech recognition in noise for children with hearing loss, compared it to recognition for children with normal hearing, and examined mechanisms that might explain variance in children's abilities to recognize speech in noise. DESIGN:Word recognition was measured in two levels of noise, both when the speech and noise were co-located in front and when the noise came separately from one side. Four mechanisms were examined as factors possibly explaining variance: vocabulary knowledge, sensitivity to phonological structure, binaural summation, and head shadow. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants were 113 eight-year-old children. Forty-eight had normal hearing (NH) and 65 had hearing loss: 18 with hearing aids (HAs), 19 with one cochlear implant (CI), and 28 with two CIs. RESULTS: Phonological sensitivity explained a significant amount of between-groups variance in speech-in-noise recognition. Little evidence of binaural summation was found. Head shadow was similar in magnitude for children with NH and with CIs, regardless of whether they wore one or two CIs. Children with HAs showed reduced head shadow effects. CONCLUSION: These outcomes suggest that in order to improve speech-in-noise recognition for children with hearing loss, intervention needs to be comprehensive, focusing on both language abilities and auditory mechanisms.
Authors: Emily Buss; Harold C Pillsbury; Craig A Buchman; Carol H Pillsbury; Marcia S Clark; David S Haynes; Robert F Labadie; Susan Amberg; Peter S Roland; Pamela Kruger; Michael A Novak; Julie A Wirth; Jennifer M Black; Robert Peters; Jennifer Lake; P Ashley Wackym; Jill B Firszt; Blake S Wilson; Dewey T Lawson; Reinhold Schatzer; Patrick S C D'Haese; Amy L Barco Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: René H Gifford; Colin L W Driscoll; Timothy J Davis; Pam Fiebig; Alan Micco; Michael F Dorman Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Margaret K Miller; Lauren Calandruccio; Emily Buss; Ryan W McCreery; Jacob Oleson; Barbara Rodriguez; Lori J Leibold Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Jantien Vroegop; Marian Rodenburg-Vlot; André Goedegebure; Agnes Doorduin; Nienke Homans; Marc van der Schroeff Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2021 July/Aug Impact factor: 3.562