J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(05): C1-C2
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713950
JAAA CEU Program
American Academy of Audiology. All rights reserved. (2020) American Academy of Audiology

JAAA CEU Program

Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
12 June 2020 (online)

Questions refer to Tamati et al, “High- and Low-Performing Adult Cochlear Implant Users on High-Variability Sentence Recognition: Differences in Auditory Spectral Resolution and Neurocognitive Functioning,“ 324–335.

Learner Outcomes

Readers of this article should be able to:

  • Understand that both auditory sensitivity and neurocognitive skills contribute to speech-recognition diff erences among postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant (CI) users.

  • Consider that auditory spectral resolution may play the most important and limiting role for low-performing CI users.


#

CEU Questions

  1. Which factor is not associated with diff erences in spectral resolution and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult CI users?

    • Patient's residual hearing

    • Patient's gender

    • Patient's duration of deafness

  2. What is meant by “top-down” processing in the context of CI users?

    • The capacity of individual CI users to make use of neurocognitive processes and language knowledge to understand the degraded sensory information

    • Diff erences in sensory input related to the CI device

    • Eff ects of adverse listening conditions on CI users

  3. Compared to high-performing CI users, low-performing CI users are more susceptible to:

    • Sources of signal degradation, including noise and speech variability

    • Practice eff ects associated with repeated assessments

    • Hard-device failures

  4. The Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set (PRESTO) materials have been shown to:

    • Be less challenging to recognize than sentence materials with lower talker variability

    • Minimize talker variability by incorporating fewer talkers, genders, and regional accents

    • Yield large individual diff erences in performance related to several neurocognitive skills

  5. Results from this study showed that the highperforming and low-performing CI groups were primarily discriminated by which scores?

    • Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test (SMRT)

    • California Verbal Learning Test, Version II (CVLT)

    • Test of Word Reading Effi ciency, Version 2 (TOWRE)

  6. In the cohort of CI users in this study, which variable was most predictive of the CI users' performance on PRESTO?

    • Verbal learning and memory

    • Lexical/phonological processing speed

    • Auditory spectral resolution

  7. Neurocognitive abilities also contributed to discriminating between high- and low-performing CI groups, as evidenced by results on which assessment of nonverbal reasoning?

    • TOWRE

    • Raven's Progressive Matrices Test

    • CVLT

  8. Overall results suggest that:

    • Only auditory spectral resolution contributes to discriminating between high- and low-performing CI groups

    • Only neurocognitive skills contribute to discriminating between high- and low-performing CI groups

    • Both neurocognitive functioning and auditory spectral resolution contribute to discriminating between high- and low-performing CI groups

  9. With reduced sensory input, listeners tend to use perceptual strategies relying on:

    • “top-down” processing

    • “bottom-up” processing

    • Guesswork

  10. The ability to engage neurocognitive resources to compensate for a degraded signal is likely to be:

    • Reduced for CI users with the best spectral resolution

    • Reduced for CI users with poor spectral resolution

    • Not related to a CI user's spectral resolution


#