Maureen J Shader1, Bomjun J Kwon2, Sandra Gordon-Salant3, Matthew J Goupell3. 1. Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 2. Auditory Professional Inc, Vienna, VA. 3. Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to investigate the effect of age on phoneme recognition performance in which the stimuli varied in the amount of temporal information available in the signal. Chronological age is increasingly recognized as a factor that can limit the amount of benefit an individual can receive from a cochlear implant (CI). Central auditory temporal processing deficits in older listeners may contribute to the performance gap between younger and older CI users on recognition of phonemes varying in temporal cues. METHOD: Phoneme recognition was measured at three stimulation rates (500, 900, and 1800 pulses per second) and two envelope modulation frequencies (50 Hz and unfiltered) in 20 CI participants ranging in age from 27 to 85 years. Speech stimuli were multiple word pairs differing in temporal contrasts and were presented via direct stimulation of the electrode array using an eight-channel continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Phoneme recognition performance was evaluated at each stimulation rate condition using both envelope modulation frequencies. RESULTS: Duration of deafness was the strongest subject-level predictor of phoneme recognition, with participants with longer durations of deafness having poorer performance overall. Chronological age did not predict performance for any stimulus condition. Additionally, duration of deafness interacted with envelope filtering. Participants with shorter durations of deafness were able to take advantage of higher frequency envelope modulations, while participants with longer durations of deafness were not. CONCLUSIONS: Age did not significantly predict phoneme recognition performance. In contrast, longer durations of deafness were associated with a reduced ability to utilize available temporal information within the signal to improve phoneme recognition performance.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to investigate the effect of age on phoneme recognition performance in which the stimuli varied in the amount of temporal information available in the signal. Chronological age is increasingly recognized as a factor that can limit the amount of benefit an individual can receive from a cochlear implant (CI). Central auditory temporal processing deficits in older listeners may contribute to the performance gap between younger and older CI users on recognition of phonemes varying in temporal cues. METHOD: Phoneme recognition was measured at three stimulation rates (500, 900, and 1800 pulses per second) and two envelope modulation frequencies (50 Hz and unfiltered) in 20 CI participants ranging in age from 27 to 85 years. Speech stimuli were multiple word pairs differing in temporal contrasts and were presented via direct stimulation of the electrode array using an eight-channel continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Phoneme recognition performance was evaluated at each stimulation rate condition using both envelope modulation frequencies. RESULTS: Duration of deafness was the strongest subject-level predictor of phoneme recognition, with participants with longer durations of deafness having poorer performance overall. Chronological age did not predict performance for any stimulus condition. Additionally, duration of deafness interacted with envelope filtering. Participants with shorter durations of deafness were able to take advantage of higher frequency envelope modulations, while participants with longer durations of deafness were not. CONCLUSIONS: Age did not significantly predict phoneme recognition performance. In contrast, longer durations of deafness were associated with a reduced ability to utilize available temporal information within the signal to improve phoneme recognition performance.
Authors: P Blamey; P Arndt; F Bergeron; G Bredberg; J Brimacombe; G Facer; J Larky; B Lindström; J Nedzelski; A Peterson; D Shipp; S Staller; L Whitford Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 1996 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.854