Categorization of everyday sounds by cochlear implanted children

Berland, Aurore; Collett, Edward; Gaillard, Pascal; Guidetti, Michèle; Strelnikov, Kuzma; Cochard, N.; Barone, Pascal; Déguine, Olivier

doi:10.1038/s41598-019-39991-9

Cited by 7 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Performance of CI users with <1 year of CI experience was specifically examined in three studies (Looi and Arnephy, 2010 ; Strelnikov et al, 2018 ; Harris et al, 2021 ). Several studies also included some participants that had 3–12 months of CI experience, although the average duration of CI experience for participants in those studies was considerably longer than 1 year (Peasgood et al, 2003 ; Looi and Arnephy, 2010 ; Heo et al, 2013 ; Liu et al, 2013 ; Zhang et al, 2016 ; Berland et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two studies that used sequences of several environmental sounds to examine CI users' ability to name the sound (Shafiro et al, 2016 , 2020 ), also examined the ability to recall the specific order in which the sounds were presented, thus placing a greater demand on auditory working memory. In addition to sound identification, three studies also examined categorization of environmental sounds either by providing participants with specific category names (Inverso and Limb, 2010 ) or asking participants to group sounds into categories of their choice in a free sorting task (Strelnikov et al, 2018 ; Berland et al, 2019 ). A single study also examined localization of environmental sounds, in addition to identification (Heo et al, 2013 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some studies, stimuli were presented more than once for different tasks, for example, first for free sorting of sounds into groups and then for identification (Strelnikov et al, 2018 ), or when stimuli were modified by different lowpass and highpass filters (Chang et al, 2017 ). In Zhang et al ( 2016 ), participants could replay the sound up to three times, and in Berland et al ( 2019 ), there was no limit to the number of times the participants could replay the sounds. In two other studies that used sequences of individual environmental sounds on each trial (Shafiro et al, 2016 , 2020 ), participants were first tested on individual sounds and then heard each sound twice but in two different sound sequences.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All studies were published in peer-reviewed journals, except (Kaga and Akamasu, 2009), which was published as a book chapter. Sixteen of the selected studies examined PES in adult CI users and three studies examined PES in children with CIs with congenital or early onset hearing loss (Kim and Lee, 2012;Liu et al, 2013;Berland et al, 2019). Most of the adult CI studies focused on post-lingually implanted adults, with only one of the adult studies (Peasgood et al, 2003) focused exclusively on pre/perilingual CI users.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Perception of Environmental Sounds in Cochlear Implant Users: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Improved perception of environmental sounds (PES) is one of the primary benefits of cochlear implantation (CI). However, past research contains mixed findings on PES ability in contemporary CI users, which at times contrast with anecdotal clinical reports. The present review examined extant PES research to provide an evidence basis for clinical counseling, identify knowledge gaps, and suggest directions for future work in this area of CI outcome assessment.Methods: Six electronic databases were searched using medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords broadly identified to reference CI and environmental sounds. Records published between 2000 and 2021 were screened by two independent reviewers in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Data were subsequently extracted and evaluated according to synthesis without-meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines.Results: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most examined PES in post-lingually implanted adults, with one study focused on pre/perilingual adults. Environmental sound identification (ESI) in quiet using open- or closed-set response format was most commonly used in PES assessment, included in all selected studies. ESI accuracy in CI children (3 studies) and adults (16 studies), was highly variable but generally mediocre (means range: 31–87%). Only two studies evaluated ESI performance prospectively before and after CI, while most studies were cross-sectional. Overall, CI performance was consistently lower than that of normal-hearing peers. No significant differences in identification accuracy were reported between CI candidates and CI users. Environmental sound identification correlated in CI users with measures of speech perception, music and spectro-temporal processing.Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review indicate considerable limitations in the current knowledge of PES in contemporary CI users, especially in pre/perilingual late-implanted adults and children. Although no overall improvement in PES following implantation was found, large individual variability and existing methodological limitations in PES assessment may potentially obscure potential CI benefits for PES. Further research in this ecologically relevant area of assessment is needed to establish a stronger evidence basis, identify CI users with significant deficits, and improve CI users' safety and satisfaction through targeted PES rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perception of Environmental Sounds in Cochlear Implant Users: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With experience, CI users become adept at discriminating voices from environmental sounds (Massida et al, 2011). Even children with CIs can perform comparably to their NH peers when categorizing human vocalizations from environmental sounds (Berland et al, 2019). Nevertheless, it has been argued that the ways in which modern cochlear implants convert speech sounds from acoustic to electric signals may not be conducive for talker perception.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognizing voices through a cochlear implant: A systematic review

Orena¹,

Sem²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Some cochlear implant (CI) users report having difficulty accessing indexical information in the speech signal, presumably due to the transformation from acoustic to electric signal in CI devices. The purpose of this paper was to systematically review and evaluate the existing research on talker perception in CI users. Specifically, we reviewed the performance of CI users in talker discrimination, gender identification, and talker recognition tasks in relation to performance by normal-hearing (NH) listeners. We also examined the different factors (such asparticipant, hearing and device characteristics) that might influence talker perception.Design: We completed a systematic search of the literature with select keywords using citation aggregation software to search Google Scholar. We included primary reports that had at least one group of participants with cochlear implants, and had an experimental task that measured talker or voice perception. Each included study was also evaluated for quality of evidence.Results: The initial search resulted in 1239 references, which were first screened for inclusion and then evaluated in full. Thirty-nine studies examining talker identification, talker discrimimnation, and gender discrimination were included in the final review. The majority of studies were focused on adult postlingual cochlear implant users, with a few studies focused on prelingual implant users. As a group, CI users generally performed above chance in talker perception tasks, but performed worse than NH controls. Nonetheless, a subset of CI users reached the same level of performance as NH participants. CI users relied more heavily on fundamental frequency over vocal tract length cues to distinguish talkers compared to NH listeners. Within groups of CI users, there is moderate evidence for a bimodal benefit for talker perception, and there are mixed findings about the effects of hearing experience. Performance in talker discrimination tasks was related to other linguistic tasks, including word recognition. Conclusion: The current review highlights the challenges faced by CI users in tracking and recognizing voices and how they adapt to it. There is clear evidence that CI users can process indexical information, albeit differently and more effortfully than NH listeners. Recent work has begun to describe some of the factors that might ease the challenges of talker perception in CI users, but further high-quality research is needed to disentangle some of the mixed findings. We conclude by suggesting some future avenues of research to optimize real-world speech outcomes.

show abstract

Identification Accuracy of Safety‐Relevant Environmental Sounds in Adult Cochlear Implant Users

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveExamine cochlear implant (CI) users' ability to identify safety‐relevant environmental sounds, imperative for safety, independence, and personal well‐being.MethodsTwenty‐one experienced adult CI users completed an Environmental Sound Identification (ESI) test consisting of 42 common environmental sounds, 28 of which were relevant to personal safety, along with 14 control sounds. Prior to sound identification, participants were shown sound names and asked to rate the familiarity and, separately, relevance to safety of each corresponding sound on a 1–5 scale.ResultsOverall ESI accuracy was 57% correct for the safety‐relevant sounds and 55% correct for control sounds. Participants rated safety‐relevant sounds as more important to safety and more familiar than the non‐safety sounds. ESI accuracy significantly correlated with familiarity ratings.ConclusionThe present findings suggest mediocre ESI accuracy in postlingual adult CI users for safety‐relevant and other environmental sounds. Deficits in the identification of these sounds may put CI listeners at increased risk of accidents or injuries and may require a specific rehabilitation program to improve CI outcomes.Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 133:2388–2393, 2023

show abstract

Categorization of everyday sounds by cochlear implanted children

Cited by 7 publications

References 53 publications

Perception of Environmental Sounds in Cochlear Implant Users: A Systematic Review

Perception of Environmental Sounds in Cochlear Implant Users: A Systematic Review

Recognizing voices through a cochlear implant: A systematic review

Identification Accuracy of Safety‐Relevant Environmental Sounds in Adult Cochlear Implant Users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About