Abstract
Introduction: There are substantial differences in speech recognition performance of adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients. This study investigated the effects of cognitive function on speech recognition in CI recipients. Methods: The verbal working memory of 36 adults with unilateral CIs was tested using digit span tests. Attention and inhibition abilities were assessed by using the Stroop test (both congruent and incongruent tasks). Speech recognition in noise was measured using the Turkish matrix test. Results: A moderate negative correlation was observed between the critical signal-to-noise ratio obtained via speech recognition in noise test and the digit span test scores (backward and digit span total scores). There was no correlation between Stroop test scores and speech recognition in noise in CI recipients. Conclusion: The findings indicated that verbal working memory correlated well with speech recognition outcomes in adult CI recipients and that higher working memory capacity led to better speech recognition performance in noise.
Journal Section:
Research Article
References
1.
Blamey
P
, Artieres
F
, Başkent
D
, Bergeron
F
, Beynon
A
, Burke
E
. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients
. Audiol Neurotol
. 2013 Dec
18
1
36
47
.2.
Holden
LK
, Finley
CC
, Firszt
JB
, Holden
TA
, Brenner
C
, Potts
LG
. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants
. Ear Hear
. 2013 May
34
3
342
60
.3.
Moberly
AC
, Bates
C
, Harris
MS
, Pisoni
DB
. The enigma of poor performance by adults with cochlear implants
. Otol Neurotol
. 2016 Nov
37
10
1522
8
.4.
Sorrentino
F
, Gheller
F
, Lunardi
G
, Brotto
D
, Trevisi
P
, Martini
A
. Cochlear implantation in adults with auditory deprivation: what do we know about it
. Am J Otolaryngol
. 2020 Mar 1
41
2
102366
.5.
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 Jun 12
9
6
e99096
.6.
Berrettini
S
, Baggiani
A
, Bruschini
L
, Cassandro
E
, Cuda
D
, Filipo
R
. Systematic review of the literature on the clinical effectiveness of the cochlear implant procedure in adult patients
. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital
. 2011 Oct
31
5
299
310
.7.
Moberly
AC
, Harris
MS
, Boyce
L
, Nittrouer
S
. Speech recognition in adults with cochlear implants: the effects of working memory, phonological sensitivity, and aging
. J Speech Lang Hear Res
. 2017 Apr 1
60
4
1046
61
.8.
Zhan
KY
, Lewis
JH
, Vasil
KJ
, Tamati
TN
, Harris
MS
, Pisoni
DB
. Cognitive functions in adults receiving cochlear implants: predictors of speech recognition and changes after implantation
. Otol Neurotol
. 2020 Mar 1
41
3
e322
29
.9.
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 Nov
47
Suppl 2
S53
71
.10.
Rönnberg
J
, Lunner
T
, Zekveld
A
, Sörqvist
P
, Danielsson
H
, Lyxell
B
. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances
. Front Syst Neurosci
. 2013 Jun 24
7
31
.11.
Kathleen Pichora-Fuller
M
. Perceptual effort and apparent cognitive decline: implications for audiologic rehabilitation
. Semin Hear
. 2006 Nov
27
4
284
93
.12.
13.
14.
Unsworth
N
, Engle
RW
. The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory
. Psychol Rev
. 2007 Jan
114
1
104
32
.15.
Stroop
JR
. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions
. J Exp Psychol
. 1935 Dec
18
6
643
62
.16.
Janse
E
. A non-auditory measure of interference predicts distraction by competing speech in older adults
. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn
. 2012
;19
(6
):741
–58
.17.
Polat
Z
, Bulut
E
, Ataş
A
. Assessment of the speech intelligibility performance of post lingual cochlear implant users at different signal-to-noise ratios using the Turkish matrix test
. Balkan Med J
. 2016 Sep 1
33
5
532
8
.18.
Wechsler
DW
Intelligence scale for children (WISC-III)
3rd edSan Antonio, TX
The Psychological Corporation. NIH Public Access
1991
.19.
Hey
M
, Hocke
T
, Hedderich
J
, Müller-Deile
J
. Investigation of a matrix sentence test in noise: reproducibility and discrimination function in cochlear implant patients
. Int J Audiol
. 2014
;53
(12
):895
–902
.20.
Dietz
A
, Buschermöhle
M
, Aarnisalo
AA
, Vanhanen
A
, Hyyrynen
T
, Aaltonen
O
. The development and evaluation of the Finnish Matrix Sentence Test for speech intelligibility assessment
. Acta Otolaryngol
. 2014
;134
(7
):728
–37
.21.
Lazard
DS
, Vincent
C
, Venail
F
, van de Heyning
P
, Truy
E
, Sterkers
O
. Pre-per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time
. PLoS One
. 2012 Nov 9
7
11
e48739
.22.
Roberts
DS
, Lin
HW
, Herrmann
BS
, Lee
DJ
. Differential cochlear implant outcomes in older adults
. Laryngoscope
. 2013 Aug
123
8
1952
6
.23.
Maria
MDM
, Polo
R
, A
Gutierrez Ã
, Muriel
Y
, Vaca
M
, Perez
C
. Cochlear implantation in postlingual adult patients with long-term auditory deprivation
. Otol Neuroto
. 2017
;38
(8
):e248
–52
.24.
O’Neill
ER
, Kreft
HA
, Oxenham
AJ
. Cognitive factors contribute to speech perception in cochlear-implant users and age-matched normal-hearing listeners under vocoded conditions
. J Acoust Soc Am
. 2019 Jul
146
1
195
.25.
Mosnier
I
, Bebear
JP
, Marx
M
, Fraysse
B
, Truy
E
, Lina-Granade
G
. Improvement of cognitive function after cochlear implantation in elderly patients
. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
. 2015 May 1
141
5
442
50
.26.
Arehart
KH
, Souza
P
, Baca
R
, Kates
JM
. Working memory, age and hearing loss: susceptibility to hearing aid distortion
. Ear Hear
. 2013 May
34
3
251
60
.27.
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 Neurootol
. 2007 Jun
12
4
254
64
.28.
Barone
P
, Lacassagne
L
, Kral
A
. Reorganization of the connectivity of cortical field DZ in congenitally deaf cat
. PLoS One
. 2013 Apr 12
8
4
e60093
.29.
Dye
MWG
, Hauser
PC
, Bavelier
D
. Is visual selective attention in deaf individuals enhanced or deficient? The case of the useful field of view
. PLoS One
. 2009 May 20
4
5
e5640
.30.
Mourtou
E
, Meis
M
. Introduction to audiology: some basics about hearing loss, hearing technologies and barriers to hearing aid use
. In: Hearing aids communication : integrating social interaction, audiology and user centered design to improve communication with hearing loss and hearing technologies
Verlag für Gesprächsforschung
2012
. p. 9
21
.31.
Knight
S
, Heinrich
A
. Different measures of auditory and visual stroop interference and their relationship to speech intelligibility in noise
. Front Psychol
. 2017 Mar 17
8
230
.© 2023 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2023
You do not currently have access to this content.
