Literature DB >> 27718347

Behavioral Measures of Temporal Processing and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Chelsea Blankenship1, Fawen Zhang1, Robert Keith1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although most cochlear implant (CI) users achieve improvements in speech perception, there is still a wide variability in speech perception outcomes. There is a growing body of literature that supports the relationship between individual differences in temporal processing and speech perception performance in CI users. Previous psychophysical studies have emphasized the importance of temporal acuity for overall speech perception performance. Measurement of gap detection thresholds (GDTs) is the most common measure currently used to assess temporal resolution. However, most GDT studies completed with CI participants used direct electrical stimulation not acoustic stimulation and they used psychoacoustic research paradigms that are not easy to administer clinically. Therefore, it is necessary to determine if the variance in GDTs assessed with clinical measures of temporal processing such as the Randomized Gap Detection Test (RGDT) can be used to explain the variability in speech perception performance.
PURPOSE: The primary goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between temporal processing and speech perception performance in CI users. RESEARCH
DESIGN: A correlational study investigating the relationship between behavioral GDTs (assessed with the RGDT or the Expanded Randomized Gap Detection Test) and commonly used speech perception measures (assessed with the Speech Recognition Test [SRT], Central Institute for the Deaf W-22 Word Recognition Test [W-22], Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant Test [CNC], Arizona Biomedical Sentence Recognition Test [AzBio], Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test [BKB-SIN]). STUDY SAMPLE: Twelve postlingually deafened adult CI users (24-83 yr) and ten normal-hearing (NH; 22-30 yr) adults participated in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The data were collected in a sound-attenuated test booth. After measuring pure-tone thresholds, GDTs and speech perception performance were measured. The difference in performance between-participant groups on the aforementioned tests, as well as the correlation between GDTs and speech perception performance was examined. The correlations between participants' biologic factors, performance on the RGDT and speech perception measures were also explored.
RESULTS: Although some CI participants performed as well as the NH listeners, the majority of the CI participants displayed temporal processing impairments (GDTs > 20 msec) and poorer speech perception performance than NH participants. A statistically significant difference was found between the NH and CI test groups in GDTs and some speech tests (SRT, W-22, and BKB-SIN). For the CI group, there were significant correlations between GDTs and some measures of speech perception (CNC Phoneme, AzBio, BKB-SIN); however, no significant correlations were found between biographic factors and GDTs or speech perception performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Results support the theory that the variability in temporal acuity in CI users contributes to the variability in speech performance. Results also indicate that it is reasonable to use the clinically available RGDT to identify CI users with temporal processing impairments for further appropriate rehabilitation. American Academy of Audiology

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27718347      PMCID: PMC6921515          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.15026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  59 in total

1.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria.

Authors:  J T Rubinstein; W S Parkinson; R S Tyler; B J Gantz
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1999-07

2.  Gaps-in-Noise test: gap detection thresholds in 9-year-old normal-hearing children.

Authors:  Carolina Finetti Marculino; Camila Maia Rabelo; Eliane Schochat
Journal:  J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol       Date:  2011-12

3.  Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition.

Authors:  Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Jon K Shallop; Anna Mary Peterson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 1.854

5.  BKB-SIN and ANL predict perceived communication ability in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Theresa H Chisolm; Georgina P Blasco; Leslie J Shinnick; Katie J Ketter; Jean C Krause
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

7.  Enhanced hearing in noise for cochlear implant recipients: clinical trial results for a commercially available speech-enhancement strategy.

Authors:  Dawn Burton Koch; Andrew Quick; Mary Joe Osberger; Aniket Saoji; Leonid Litvak
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  Erwin L J George; Joost M Festen; Tammo Houtgast
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  An adaptive clinical test of temporal resolution: age effects.

Authors:  Jennifer J Lister; Richard A Roberts; Frank L Lister
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  3 in total

1.  Age-Related Changes in Temporal Resolution Revisited: Electrophysiological and Behavioral Findings From Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Bruna S S Mussoi; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Relationship Between the Ability to Detect Frequency Changes or Temporal Gaps and Speech Perception Performance in Post-lingual Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Dianzhao Xie; Jianfen Luo; Xiuhua Chao; Jinming Li; Xianqi Liu; Zhaomin Fan; Haibo Wang; Lei Xu
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 5.152

3.  Within- and across-frequency temporal processing and speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Chelsea M Blankenship; Jareen Meinzen-Derr; Fawen Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-13       Impact factor: 3.752

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.