Literature DB >> 26967255

Word Recognition Variability With Cochlear Implants: The Degradation of Phonemic Sensitivity.

Aaron C Moberly1, Joanna H Lowenstein, Susan Nittrouer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implants (CIs) do not automatically restore speech recognition for postlingually deafened adults. Average word recognition remains at 60%, and enormous variability exists. Understanding speech requires knowledge of phonemic codes, the basic sound units of language. Hearing loss may result in degeneration of these long-term mental representations (i.e., "phonemic sensitivity"), and CI use may not adequately restore those representations. This investigation examined whether phonemic sensitivity is degraded for CI users, and whether this degradation results in poorer word recognition. STUDY
DESIGN: Thirty adults with CIs and 20 normal-hearing controls underwent testing.
METHODS: Participants were assessed for word recognition in quiet, along with tasks of phonemic sensitivity using an audiovisual format to maximize recognition: initial consonant choice (ICC), in which they selected the word with the same starting sound as a target word, final consonant choice (FCC), in which they selected the word with the same ending sound, and backwards words, in which they repeated phonemes comprising words in backwards order.
RESULTS: Phonemic sensitivity was poorer for CI users than for normal-hearing controls for ICC and FCC. For CI users, ICC and FCC predicted 25% and 40% of variance in word recognition, respectively. Longer duration of CI use did not lead to greater restoration in phonemic sensitivity.
CONCLUSION: Even for adults who presumably had developed refined phonemic representations, hearing loss can degrade those representations, which results in poorer word recognition. Cochlear implants do not adequately restore those representations. Findings suggest the need for rehabilitative efforts to improve CI users' phonemic sensitivity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26967255     DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  12 in total

Review 1.  The Enigma of Poor Performance by Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Chelsea Bates; Michael S Harris; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Acoustic Context Alters Vowel Categorization in Perception of Noise-Vocoded Speech.

Authors:  Christian E Stilp
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-03-09

3.  How does aging affect recognition of spectrally degraded speech?

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Kara J Vasil; Taylor L Wucinich; Natalie Safdar; Lauren Boyce; Christina Roup; Rachael Frush Holt; Oliver F Adunka; Irina Castellanos; Valeriy Shafiro; Derek M Houston; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Speech Recognition in Adults With Cochlear Implants: The Effects of Working Memory, Phonological Sensitivity, and Aging.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Michael S Harris; Lauren Boyce; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Making Sense of Sentences: Top-Down Processing of Speech by Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Jessa Reed
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Speech Production Accuracy and Variability in Monolingual and Bilingual Children With Cochlear Implants: A Comparison to Their Peers With Normal Hearing.

Authors:  Anna V Sosa; Ferenc Bunta
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Preoperative Visual Measures of Verbal Learning and Memory and their Relations to Speech Recognition After Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Christin Ray; David B Pisoni; Emily Lu; William G Kronenberger; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.562

8.  Do Patients Benefit From a Cochlear Implant When They Qualify Only in the Presence of Background Noise?

Authors:  Emily M H Lundberg; Darcy Strong; Melinda Anderson; Alexander M Kaizer; Samuel Gubbels
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 2.619

9.  Word and Nonword Reading Efficiency in Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Terrin N Tamati; Kara J Vasil; William G Kronenberger; David B Pisoni; Aaron C Moberly; Christin Ray
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 2.619

10.  Verbal working memory and inhibition-concentration in adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Derek M Houston; Michael S Harris; Oliver F Adunka; Irina Castellanos
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-07-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.