J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(02): 129-136
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.19002
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Temporal Processing and Speech Perception Performance in Postlingual Adult Users of Cochlear Implants

Sıdıka Cesur
*   Marmara University School of Medicine, Audiology Department, Istanbul, Turkey
Ufuk Derinsu
*   Marmara University School of Medicine, Audiology Department, Istanbul, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

29 March 2019

Publication Date:
25 May 2020 (online)



Cochlear implant (CI) listeners had some hearing problems, including catching clues from speech context, persist, particularly in complex listening environments. Among these hearing problems, temporal resolution is considered to be one of the most affected aspects of hearing.


The aim of the study is to assess and compare the temporal resolution ability of CI users and individuals with normal hearing using the Gaps-in-Noise (GIN) test. This study also aims to investigate whether there are any differences in speech recognition and temporal resolution performance between groups separated according to the implanted ear, gender, CI type, or sound processor strategies.

Research Design:

Case-control study.

Study Samples:

18 adults (9 males, 9 females) with normal hearing, ranging in age between 18 and 55 years (mean: 30.64 ± 8.59 years) and 18 postlingual adults (10 males, 8 females) with bilateral CIs ranging in age between 19 and 59 years (mean: 36.64 ± 16.59 years) were included in the current study.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Hearing thresholds, word recognition scores (WRS), and GIN test were conducted for each participant. Two parameters of GIN test were determined: the GIN threshold and total percentage score (TPS). Mann–Whitney U test was used to test the significance of the differences between the groups in terms of GIN threshold, WRS, and TPS.


CI group showed significantly (p < 0.001) poorer performance in terms of WRS than normal hearing group. However there were no significant differences in WRS between groups which were divided according to the implanted ear, gender, CI type, and sound processor strategies. The mean GIN threshold was 3.33 ± 1.2 msec, whereas it was 9.56 ± 3.49 msec in CI users. Moreover the mean value of TPS was 90.77% in the normal group and 47.22% in the CI group. These differences between the two groups were also found statistically significant (p < 0.001).


Our results show that CI users do not discriminate GIN as well as normal-hearing individuals, although their hearing levels with CIs are very close to normal hearing limits at all frequencies.


  • Blamey P. et al. 2013; Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol 18: 36-47
  • Busby P, Clark GM. 1999; Gap detection by early-deafened cochlear-implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 105: 1841-1852
  • Cazals Y, Kasper A, Pelizzone M, Montandon P. 1991. Indication of a Relation between Speech Perception and Temporal Resolution for Cochlear Implantees. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Sage CA;
  • Cazals Y, Pelizzone M, Saudan O, Boex C. 1994; Low‐pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 96: 2048-2054
  • Clark G. 2003. Cochlear Implants: Fundamentals and Applications. New York, NY: Springer;
  • Dowell R, Blamey P, Clark GM. 1995. Potential and Limitations of Cochlear Implants in Children. Vol. 8 Scientific Publications; 1994-1995 no. 738
  • Duarte M, Gresele AD, Pinheiro MM. 2016; Temporal processing in postlingual adult users of cochlear implant. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 82: 304-309
  • Durankaya SM, Şerbetçioğlu B, Dalkılıç G, Gürkan S, Kırkım G. 2014; Development of a Turkish monosyllabic word recognition test for adults. Int Adv Otol 10: 172-180
  • Fu Q-J. 2002; Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Neuroreport 13: 1635-1639
  • Kaiser AR, Svirsk MA, Meyer TA. 1999 Use of gap duration identification in consonant perception by cochlear implant users. Research on spoken language processing. Progress Report, 23.
  • Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L. 2009. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 6th ed. Philadelpia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;
  • Kirby AE, Middlebrooks JC. 2009; Auditory temporal acuity probed with cochlear implant stimulation and cortical recording. J Neurophysiol 103: 531-542
  • Kirk KI. 2000. Challenges in the clinical investigation of cochlear implant outcomes. In: Niparko J. Cochlear Implants: Principles and Practices. Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 225-259
  • Lazard DS. et al. 2012; Pre-, per-and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PLoS One 7: e48739
  • Medina MDM, Polo R, Gutierrez A, Muriel A, Vaca M, Perez C, Cordero A, Cobeta I. 2017; Cochlear implantation in postlingual adult patients with long-term auditory deprivation. Otol Neurotol 38: e248-e252
  • Merzenich MM, Jenkins WM, Johnston P, Schreiner C, Miller SL, Tallal P. 1996; Temporal processing deficits of language-learning impaired children ameliorated by training. Science 271: 77-81
  • Moon IS, Park S, Kim H-N, Lee W-S, Kim SH, Kim J-H, Choi JY. 2014; Is there a deafness duration limit for cochlear implants in post-lingual deaf adults?. Acta Otolaryngol 134: 173-180
  • Musiek FE, Bellis TJ, Chermak GD. 2005; Nonmodularity of the central auditory nervous system: implications for (central) auditory processing disorder. Am J Audiol 14: 128-138 ; discussion 143–50.
  • Padilla MR, Sainz MQ, Roldán CS. 2004; Cochlear implant in postlingual adults with progressive hearing loss. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 55: 457-462
  • Phillips SL, Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ, Yeni-Komshian G. 2000; Frequency and temporal resolution in elderly listeners with good and poor word recognition. J Speech Lang Hear Res 43: 217-228
  • Rawool VW. 2007. Temporal integration and processing in the auditory system. In: Geffner D, Ross-Swain D. Auditory Processing Disorders. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 117-138
  • Sales de Meneses M, Costa Cardoso C, Monteiro de Castro Silva I. 2014; Fatores que interferem no desempenho de usuários de implante coclear em testes de percepção de fala. Rev CEFAC 16: 65-71
  • Schaefer S, Henderson L, Graham J, Broomfield S, Cullington H, Schramm D, Waltzman S, Bruce I. 2017. Review of Outcomes and Measurement Instruments in Cochlear Implantation Studies Taylor & Francis;
  • Shannon RV. 1989; Detection of gaps in sinusoids and pulse trains by patients with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 85: 2587-2592
  • Shannon RV, Zeng F-G, Wygonski J. 1998; Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. J Acoust Soc Am 104: 2467-2476
  • Suh M-W, Park KT, Lee H-J, Lee JH, Chang SO, Oh SH. 2015; Factors contributing to speech performance in elderly cochlear implanted patients: an FDG-PET study: a preliminary study. J Int Adv Otol 11 (02) 98-103
  • Tallal P, Miller SL, Fitch RH. 1993; Neurobiological basis of speech: a case for the preeminence of temporal processing. Ann N Y Acad Sci 682: 27-47
  • Van Dijk JE, Van Olphen AF, Langereis MC, Mens LH, Brokx JP, Smoorenburg GF. 1999; Predictors of cochlear implant performance. Audiology 38: 109-116
  • Wilson BS, Dorman MF. 2008; Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hear Res 242: 3-21
  • Zeng F-G, Nie K, Stickney GS, Kong Y-Y, Vongphoe M, Bhargave A, Wei C, Cao K. 2005; Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102: 2293-2298
  • Zeng F-G, Nie K, Stickney GS, Kong Y-Y, Vongphoe M, Bhargave A, Wei C, Cao K. 2005; Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102: 2293-2298
  • Zeng F-G, Oba S, Garde S, Sininger Y, Starr A. 1999; Temporal and speech processing deficits in auditory neuropathy. Neuroreport 10: 3429-3435
  • Zwolan TA, Collins LM, Wakefield GH. 1997; Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 102: 3673-3685