High- and Low-Performing Adult Cochlear Implant Users on High-Variability Sentence Recognition: Differences in Auditory Spectral Resolution and Neurocognitive FunctioningFunding Collection of data was primarily supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) Career Development Award 5K23DC015539-02, and the American Otological Society Clinician-Scientist Award to Aaron C. Moberly. Preparation of the manuscript was also supported in part by VENI Grant No. 275-89-035 from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and funding from the President's Postdoctoral Scholars Program (PPSP) at The Ohio State University awarded to Terrin N. Tamati.
09 June 2020 (online)
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.
- 1 Akeroyd MA. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol 2008; 47: S53-S71
- 2 Arehart KH, Souza P, Baca R, Kates JM. Working memory, age and hearing loss: susceptibility to hearing aid distortion. Ear Hear 2013; 34: 251-260
- 3 Aronoff JM, Landsberger DM. The development of a modified spectral ripple test. J Acoust Soc Am 2013; 134: EL217-EL222
- 4 Bhargava P, Gaudrain E, Basxkent D. Top–down restoration of speech in cochlear-implant users. Hear Res 2014; 309: 113-123
- 5 Blamey P, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlingually deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neuro Otol 2013; 18: 36-47
- 6 Chatterjee M, Peredo F, Nelson D, Basxkent D. Recognition of interrupted sentences under conditions of spectral degradation. J Acoust Soc Am 2010; 127: EL37-EL41
- 7 Clopper CG. Effects of dialect variation on the semantic predictability benefit. Lang Cogn Process 2012; 27: 1002-1020
- 8 Collison EA, Munson B, Carney AE. Relations among linguistic and cognitive skills and spoken word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47: 496-508
- 9 Croghan NBH, Duran SI, Smith ZM. Re-examining the relationship between number of cochlear implant channels and maximal speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 142: EL537
- 10 Delis DC, Kramer J, Kaplan E, Ober BA. California Verbal Learning Test, 2. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2000
- 11 DiNino M, Arenberg JG. Age-related performance on vowel identification and the spectral-temporally modulated ripple test in children with normal hearing and with cochlear implants. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 1-20
- 12 Drennen WR, Anderson ES, Won JH, Rubinstein JT. Validation of a clinical assessment of spectral ripple resolution for cochlear-implant users. Ear Hear 2014; 35: E92-E98
- 13 Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state” A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189-198
- 14 Friesen LM, Sannon RV, Basxkent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110: 1150-1163
- 15 Fu QJ, Nogaki G. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2005; 6: 19-27
- 16 Fu QJ, Shannon RV, Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104: 3586-3596
- 17 Garofolo JS, Lamel LF, Fisher WM, Fiscus JG, Pallett DS, Dahlgren NL. The DARPA TIMIT Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium; 1993
- 18 Gilbert JL, Tamati TN, Pisoni DB. Development, reliability and validity of PRESTO: a new high-variability sentence recognition test. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24: 1-11
- 19 Henry BA, Turner CW, Behrens A. Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 118: 1111-1121
- 20 Heydebrand G, Hale S, Potts L, Gotter B, Skinner M. Cognitive predictors of improvements in adults’ spoken word recognition six months after cochlear implant activation. Audiol Neuro Otol 2007; 12: 254-264
- 21 Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, Gotter BD, Vanderhoff SS, Mispagel K, Heydebrand G, Kinner MW. Factors affecting open-set recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2013; 34: 342-360
- 22 Janse E, Ernestus M. The roles of bottom-up and top-down information in the recognition of reduced speech: evidence from listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Phonet 2011; 39: 330-343
- 23 Johnsrude IS, Mackey A, Hakyemez H, Alexander E, Trang HP, Carlyon RP. Swinging at a cocktail party: voice familiarity aids speech perception in the presence of a competing voice. Psychol Sci 2013; 24: 1995-2004
- 24 Knutson JF, Gantz BJ, Hinrichs JV, Schartz HA, Tyler RS, Woodsworth G. Psychological predictors of audiological outcomes of multichannel cochlear implants: preliminary findings. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100: 817-822
- 25 Kramer S, Vasil KJ, Adunka OF, Pisoni DB, Moberly AC. Cognitive functions in adult cochlear implant users, cochlear implant candidates, and normal-hearing listeners. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2018; 3: 304-310
- 26 Lazard DS, Lee HJ, Gaebler M, Kell CA, Truy E, Giraud AL. Phonological processing in post-lingual deafness and cochlear implant outcome. Neuroimage 2010; 49: 3443-3451
- 27 Lazard DS, et al. Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlingually deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PLoS One 2012; 7: e48739
- 28 Lenarz M, Sönmez H, Joseph G, Buchner A, Lenarz T. Cochlear implant performance in geriatric patients. Laryngoscope 2012; 122: 1361-1365
- 29 Lyxell B, Andersson J, Andersson U, Arlinger S, Bredberg G, Harder H. Phonological representation and speech understanding with cochlear implants in deafened adults. Scand J Psychol 1998; 39: 175-179
- 30 Mattingly JK, Castellanos I, Moberly AC. Nonverbal reasoning as a contributor to sentence recognition outcomes in adults with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39 (10) e956-e963
- 31 Moberly AC, Bates C, Harris MS, Pisoni DB. The enigma of poor performance by adults with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2016; a 37: 1522-1528
- 32 Moberly AC, Houston DM, Castellanos I. Non-auditory neurocognitive skills contribute to speech recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2016; b 1: 154-162
- 33 Moberly AC, Castellanos I, Vasil KJ, Adunka OF, Pisoni DB. “Product” versus “process” measures in assessing speech recognition outcomes in adults with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2017; 39: E195-E202
- 34 Moberly AC, Lowenstein JH, Tarr E, Caldwell-Tarr A, Welling DB, Shahin AJ, Nittrouer S. Do adults with cochlear implants rely on different acoustic cues for phoneme perception than adults with normal hearing?. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2014; 57: 566-582
- 35 Moberly AC, Vasil KJ, Wcinich T, Safdar N, Boyce L, Roup C, Holt R, Adunka O, Castellanos I, Sharifo V, Houston D, Pisoni DB. How does aging affect recognition of spectrally degraded speech?. Laryngoscope 2018; 128 (05) DOI: 10.1002/lary.27457.
- 36 Mullennix JW, Pisoni DB, Martin CS. Some effects of talker variability on recall of spoken word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 85: 365-378
- 37 Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95: 1085-1099
- 38 Nittrouer S, Burton LT. The role of early language experience in the development of speech perception and phonological processing abilities: evidence from 5-year-olds with histories of otitis media with effusion and low socioeconomic status. J Commun Disord 2005; 38: 29-63
- 39 Nusbaum HC, Magnuson JS. Talker normalization: phonetic constancy as a cognitive process. In: Johnson K, Mullennix JW. , ed. Talker Variability in Speech Processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1997: 109-132
- 40 Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider B, Daneman M. How young and old listeners listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 593-608
- 41 Pisoni DB. Some thoughts on “normalization” in speech perception. In: Johnson K, Mullennix JW. , ed. Talker Variability in Speech Processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1997: 9-32
- 42 Pisoni DB, Broadstock A, Wucinich T, Safdar N, Miller K, Hernandez LR, Vasil K, Boyce L, Davies A, Harris MS, Castellanos I, Xu H, Kronenberger WG, Moberly AC. Verbal learning and memory after cochlear implantation in postlingually deaf adults: some new findings with the CVLT-II. Ear Hear 2018; 39: 720-745
- 43 Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG, Harris MS, Moberly AC. Three challenges for future research on cochlear implants. World J Otorhinolaryngol Hear Neck Surg 2017; 3: 240-254
- 44 Raven J. The Raven’s progressive matrices: change and stability over culture and time. Cogn Psychol 2000; 41: 1-48
- 45 Souza P, Gehani N, Wright R, McCloy D. The advantage of knowing the talker. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24: 689-700
- 46 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Van Wie S, Gifford RH, Loizou PC, Loiselle LM, Oakes T, Cook S. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012; 33: 112-117
- 47 Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 1935; 18: 643-662
- 48 Tabachnik BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2001
- 49 Tamati TN, Pisoni DB. Non-native speech recognition in high-variability listening conditions using PRESTO. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25: 869-892
- 50 Tamati TN, Gilbert JL, Pisoni DB. Some factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on PRESTO: a first report. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24: 616-634
- 51 Tamati TN, Janse E, Basxkent D. Perceptual discrimination of speaking style under cochlear implant simulation. Ear Hear 2019; 40: 63-76
- 52 Tao D, Deng R, Jiang Y, Galvin JJ, Fu QJ, Chen B. Contribution of auditory working memory to speech understanding in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users. PLoS One 2014; 9: E99096
- 53 Tinnemore AR, Zion DJ, Kulkarni AM, Chatterjee M. Children’s recognition of emotional prosody in spectrally degraded speech is predicted by their age and cognitive status. EarHear 2018; 39: 874-880
- 54 Torgesen JK, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA. Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 1999
- 55 Wechsler D. WISC-IV: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Integrated: Technical and Interpretive Manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace and Company; 2004
- 56 Wilkinson GS, Robertson GJ. Wide Range Achievement Test. 4th ed. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2006
- 57 Winn MB, Won JH, Moon IJ. Assessment of spectral and temporal resolution in cochlear implant users using psychoacoustic discrimination and speech cue categorization. Ear Hear 2012; 37: E377-E390
- 58 Won JH, Drennan WR, Kang RS, Rubinstein JT. Psychoacoustic abilities associated with music perception in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2010; 31: 796-805
- 59 Won JH, Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT. Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2007; 8: 384-392