HYPOTHESIS: Clinical adult cochlear implant (CI) candidacy evaluations rely heavily on measures of sentence recognition under the best-aided listening conditions. The hypothesis tested in this study was that nonauditory measures of neurocognitive processes would contribute to scores on preoperative sentence recognition for CI candidates, above and beyond hearing ability as assessed using pure-tone average (PTA). Support for this hypothesis would suggest that best-aided sentence recognition is not simply a measure of hearing ability; rather, neurocognitive functions contribute to performance and should be considered while counseling patients during CI candidacy evaluation about postoperative rehabilitative and outcome expectations. BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive functions, such as working memory capacity, inhibition-concentration, information processing speed, and nonverbal reasoning contribute to aided speech recognition outcomes in adults with hearing loss. This study examined the roles of these neurocognitive factors on preoperative speech recognition performance in adults evaluated for CI candidacy. METHODS: Thirty-one postlingually deafened adult CI candidates were enrolled. Participants were assessed using nonauditory measures of working memory capacity, inhibition-concentration, information processing speed, and nonverbal reasoning. Measures of sentence recognition in quiet and in multitalker babble (AzBio sentences) as well as sentences from the City University of New York in quiet were collected under best-aided conditions. RESULTS: AzBio sentence recognition scores in babble were predicted significantly by scores of working memory capacity after accounting for PTA. Similarly, the City University of New York sentence recognition scores were predicted significantly by nonverbal reasoning after accounting for PTA. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the idea that clinical measures of sentence recognition may be affected to varying degrees by neurocognitive functions, and these functions should be considered during evaluation for CI candidacy.
HYPOTHESIS: Clinical adult cochlear implant (CI) candidacy evaluations rely heavily on measures of sentence recognition under the best-aided listening conditions. The hypothesis tested in this study was that nonauditory measures of neurocognitive processes would contribute to scores on preoperative sentence recognition for CI candidates, above and beyond hearing ability as assessed using pure-tone average (PTA). Support for this hypothesis would suggest that best-aided sentence recognition is not simply a measure of hearing ability; rather, neurocognitive functions contribute to performance and should be considered while counseling patients during CI candidacy evaluation about postoperative rehabilitative and outcome expectations. BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive functions, such as working memory capacity, inhibition-concentration, information processing speed, and nonverbal reasoning contribute to aided speech recognition outcomes in adults with hearing loss. This study examined the roles of these neurocognitive factors on preoperative speech recognition performance in adults evaluated for CI candidacy. METHODS: Thirty-one postlingually deafened adult CI candidates were enrolled. Participants were assessed using nonauditory measures of working memory capacity, inhibition-concentration, information processing speed, and nonverbal reasoning. Measures of sentence recognition in quiet and in multitalker babble (AzBio sentences) as well as sentences from the City University of New York in quiet were collected under best-aided conditions. RESULTS:AzBio sentence recognition scores in babble were predicted significantly by scores of working memory capacity after accounting for PTA. Similarly, the City University of New York sentence recognition scores were predicted significantly by nonverbal reasoning after accounting for PTA. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the idea that clinical measures of sentence recognition may be affected to varying degrees by neurocognitive functions, and these functions should be considered during evaluation for CI candidacy.
Authors: David B Pisoni; Arthur Broadstock; Taylor Wucinich; Natalie Safdar; Kelly Miller; Luis R Hernandez; Kara Vasil; Lauren Boyce; Alexandra Davies; Michael S Harris; Irina Castellanos; Huiping Xu; William G Kronenberger; Aaron C Moberly Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2018 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman; Leonid M Litvak; Susan Van Wie; Rene H Gifford; Philipos C Loizou; Louise M Loiselle; Tyler Oakes; Sarah Cook Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Aaron C Moberly; Derek M Houston; Michael S Harris; Oliver F Adunka; Irina Castellanos Journal: Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Date: 2017-07-19
Authors: Elise E Zhao; James R Dornhoffer; Catherine Loftus; Shaun A Nguyen; Ted A Meyer; Judy R Dubno; Theodore R McRackan Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Alexander T Murr; Michael W Canfarotta; Brendan P O'Connell; Emily Buss; English R King; Andrea L Bucker; Sarah A Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Matthew M Dedmon; Kevin D Brown; Margaret T Dillon Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 2.970