Literature DB >> 31580802

High- and Low-Performing Adult Cochlear Implant Users on High-Variability Sentence Recognition: Differences in Auditory Spectral Resolution and Neurocognitive Functioning.

Terrin N Tamati1,2, Christin Ray2, Kara J Vasil2, David B Pisoni3, Aaron C Moberly2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant (CI) users routinely display large individual differences in the ability to recognize and understand speech, especially in adverse listening conditions. Although individual differences have been linked to several sensory (''bottom-up'') and cognitive (''top-down'') factors, little is currently known about the relative contributions of these factors in high- and low-performing CI users.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to investigate differences in sensory functioning and neurocognitive functioning between high- and low-performing CI users on the Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set (PRESTO), a high-variability sentence recognition test containing sentence materials produced by multiple male and female talkers with diverse regional accents. RESEARCH
DESIGN: CI users with accuracy scores in the upper (HiPRESTO) or lower quartiles (LoPRESTO) on PRESTO in quiet completed a battery of behavioral tasks designed to assess spectral resolution and neurocognitive functioning. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-one postlingually deafened adult CI users, with 11 HiPRESTO and 10 LoPRESTO participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A discriminant analysis was carried out to determine the extent to which measures of spectral resolution and neurocognitive functioning discriminate HiPRESTO and LoPRESTO CI users. Auditory spectral resolution was measured using the Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test (SMRT). Neurocognitive functioning was assessed with visual measures of working memory (digit span), inhibitory control (Stroop), speed of lexical/phonological access (Test of Word Reading Efficiency), and nonverbal reasoning (Raven's Progressive Matrices).
RESULTS: HiPRESTO and LoPRESTO CI users were discriminated primarily by performance on the SMRT and secondarily by the Raven's test. No other neurocognitive measures contributed substantially to the discriminant function.
CONCLUSIONS: High- and low-performing CI users differed by spectral resolution and, to a lesser extent, nonverbal reasoning. These findings suggest that the extreme groups are determined by global factors of richness of sensory information and domain-general, nonverbal intelligence, rather than specific neurocognitive processing operations related to speech perception and spoken word recognition. Thus, although both bottom-up and top-down information contribute to speech recognition performance, low-performing CI users may not be sufficiently able to rely on neurocognitive skills specific to speech recognition to enhance processing of spectrally degraded input in adverse conditions involving high talker variability. American Academy of Audiology. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 31580802      PMCID: PMC7103548          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18106

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


  48 in total

1.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.

Authors:  M F Folstein; S E Folstein; P R McHugh
Journal:  J Psychiatr Res       Date:  1975-11       Impact factor: 4.791

2.  Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Belinda A Henry; Christopher W Turner; Amy Behrens
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Phonological processing in post-lingual deafness and cochlear implant outcome.

Authors:  D S Lazard; H J Lee; M Gaebler; C A Kell; E Truy; A L Giraud
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-11-18       Impact factor: 6.556

4.  Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition.

Authors:  J W Mullennix; D B Pisoni; C S Martin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Non-native listeners' recognition of high-variability speech using PRESTO.

Authors:  Terrin N Tamati; David B Pisoni
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Re-examining the relationship between number of cochlear implant channels and maximal speech intelligibility.

Authors:  Naomi B H Croghan; Sara I Duran; Zachary M Smith
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Verbal Learning and Memory After Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deaf Adults: Some New Findings with the CVLT-II.

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

8.  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

9.  Contribution of auditory working memory to speech understanding in mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Duoduo Tao; Rui Deng; Ye Jiang; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Bing Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Perceptual Discrimination of Speaking Style Under Cochlear Implant Simulation.

Authors:  Terrin N Tamati; Esther Janse; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  10 in total

1.  Bottom-Up Signal Quality Impacts the Role of Top-Down Cognitive-Linguistic Processing During Speech Recognition by Adults with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Jessica H Lewis; Kara J Vasil; Christin Ray; Terrin N Tamati
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Effect of Increased Daily Cochlear Implant Use on Auditory Perception in Adults.

Authors:  Jourdan T Holder; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 2.674

3.  Open-Set Phoneme Recognition Performance With Varied Temporal Cues in Younger and Older Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Maureen J Shader; Bomjun J Kwon; Sandra Gordon-Salant; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 2.674

4.  Forward Digit Span and Word Familiarity Do Not Correlate With Differences in Speech Recognition in Individuals With Cochlear Implants After Accounting for Auditory Resolution.

Authors:  Adam K Bosen; Victoria A Sevich; Shauntelle A Cannon
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  The Perception of Regional Dialects and Foreign Accents by Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Terrin N Tamati; David B Pisoni; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 6.  Electro-Haptic Stimulation: A New Approach for Improving Cochlear-Implant Listening.

Authors:  Mark D Fletcher; Carl A Verschuur
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 4.677

Review 7.  A surgeon-scientist's perspective and review of cognitive-linguistic contributions to adult cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-11-06

8.  Home-Based Speech Perception Monitoring for Clinical Use With Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Astrid van Wieringen; Sara Magits; Tom Francart; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Lexical Effects on the Perceived Clarity of Noise-Vocoded Speech in Younger and Older Listeners.

Authors:  Terrin N Tamati; Victoria A Sevich; Emily M Clausing; Aaron C Moberly
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-04-01

10.  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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.