Literature DB >> 30601227

High-Variability Sentence Recognition in Long-Term Cochlear Implant Users: Associations With Rapid Phonological Coding and Executive Functioning.

Gretchen N L Smith1, David B Pisoni1,2, William G Kronenberger1,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the present study was to determine whether long-term cochlear implant (CI) users would show greater variability in rapid phonological coding skills and greater reliance on slow-effortful compensatory executive functioning (EF) skills than normal-hearing (NH) peers on perceptually challenging high-variability sentence recognition tasks. We tested the following three hypotheses: First, CI users would show lower scores on sentence recognition tests involving high speaker and dialect variability than NH controls, even after adjusting for poorer sentence recognition performance by CI users on a conventional low-variability sentence recognition test. Second, variability in fast-automatic rapid phonological coding skills would be more strongly associated with performance on high-variability sentence recognition tasks for CI users than NH peers. Third, compensatory EF strategies would be more strongly associated with performance on high-variability sentence recognition tasks for CI users than NH peers.
DESIGN: Two groups of children, adolescents, and young adults aged 9 to 29 years participated in this cross-sectional study: 49 long-term CI users (≥7 years) and 56 NH controls. All participants were tested on measures of rapid phonological coding (Children's Test of Nonword Repetition), conventional sentence recognition (Harvard Sentence Recognition Test), and two novel high-variability sentence recognition tests that varied the indexical attributes of speech (Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set test and Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set test-Foreign Accented English test). Measures of EF included verbal working memory (WM), spatial WM, controlled cognitive fluency, and inhibition concentration.
RESULTS: CI users scored lower than NH peers on both tests of high-variability sentence recognition even after conventional sentence recognition skills were statistically controlled. Correlations between rapid phonological coding and high-variability sentence recognition scores were stronger for the CI sample than for the NH sample even after basic sentence perception skills were statistically controlled. Scatterplots revealed different ranges and slopes for the relationship between rapid phonological coding skills and high-variability sentence recognition performance in CI users and NH peers. Although no statistically significant correlations between EF strategies and sentence recognition were found in the CI or NH sample after use of a conservative Bonferroni-type correction, medium to high effect sizes for correlations between verbal WM and sentence recognition in the CI sample suggest that further investigation of this relationship is needed.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide converging support for neurocognitive models that propose two channels for speech-language processing: a fast-automatic channel that predominates whenever possible and a compensatory slow-effortful processing channel that is activated during perceptually-challenging speech processing tasks that are not fully managed by the fast-automatic channel (ease of language understanding, framework for understanding effortful listening, and auditory neurocognitive model). CI users showed significantly poorer performance on measures of high-variability sentence recognition than NH peers, even after simple sentence recognition was controlled. Nonword repetition scores showed almost no overlap between CI and NH samples, and correlations between nonword repetition scores and high-variability sentence recognition were consistent with greater reliance on engagement of fast-automatic phonological coding for high-variability sentence recognition in the CI sample than in the NH sample. Further investigation of the verbal WM-sentence recognition relationship in CI users is recommended. Assessment of fast-automatic phonological processing and slow-effortful EF skills may provide a better understanding of speech perception outcomes in CI users in the clinical setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30601227     DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000691

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  10 in total

1.  Assessing Higher Order Language Processing in Long-Term Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  William G Kronenberger; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 2.408

2.  Development of visual sustained selective attention and response inhibition in deaf children.

Authors:  Matthew W G Dye; Brennan Terhune-Cotter
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-07-06

3.  Differential At-Risk Pediatric Outcomes of Parental Sensitivity Based on Hearing Status.

Authors:  Izabela A Jamsek; Rachael Frush Holt; William G Kronenberger; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 2.674

4.  The contribution of spectral processing to the acquisition of phonological sensitivity by adolescent cochlear implant users and normal-hearing controls.

Authors:  Susan Nittrouer; Joanna H Lowenstein; Donal G Sinex
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-09       Impact factor: 2.482

5.  Disparate Oral and Written Language Abilities in Adolescents With Cochlear Implants: Evidence From Narrative Samples.

Authors:  Luke Breland; Joanna H Lowenstein; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch       Date:  2021-12-13       Impact factor: 2.215

6.  Verbal Working Memory Error Patterns and Speech-Language Outcomes in Youth With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Daniel R Romano; William G Kronenberger; Shirley C Henning; Caitlin J Montgomery; Allison M Ditmars; Courtney A Johnson; Hannah D Bozell; Adeline D Yates; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-11-11       Impact factor: 2.674

7.  Recognizing spoken words in semantically-anomalous sentences: Effects of executive control in early-implanted deaf children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  David B Pisoni; William G Kronenberger
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2021-03-05

8.  Poor Performer: A Distinct Entity in Cochlear Implant Users?

Authors:  Christiane Völter; Kirsten Oberländer; Imme Haubitz; Rebecca Carroll; Stefan Dazert; Jan Peter Thomas
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 2.213

9.  Functional hearing quality in prelingually deaf school-age children and adolescents with cochlear implants.

Authors:  William G Kronenberger; Hannah Bozell; Shirley C Henning; Caitlin J Montgomery; Allison M Ditmars; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Serial Recall Predicts Vocoded Sentence Recognition Across Spectral Resolutions.

Authors:  Adam K Bosen; Michael F Barry
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-03-26       Impact factor: 2.297

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.