Investigating Speech Recognition and listening effort with different device configurations in adult cochlear implant users

Sladen, Douglas P.; Nie, Yingjiu; Berg, Katelyn A

doi:10.1080/14670100.2018.1424513

Cited by 16 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Future research should examine delayed recall abilities and apply the ISDA to other groups of CI users such as those with lower speech perception performance (Moberly et al, 2016), single sided deafness (SSD; Sharma et al, 2016), and younger participants (Cartocci et al, 2019) to further explore the validity of these constructs. Although our sample size is not atypical of research surrounding CIs (Moberly et al, 2018;Sladen et al, 2018;Mancini et al, 2020;Zhan et al, 2020), this may have limited our ability to detect smaller differences in performance and may have contributed to a lack of relationship between the MoCA and CVLT-3 measures. While the ISDA has been used in other clinical populations (Wright et al, 2009(Wright et al, , 2010Cattie et al, 2012;Oltra-Cucarella et al, 2014;Tayim et al, 2016;Basso et al, 2021), this was the first study to apply the ISDA scoring method to a CI population, and thus this study offers an additional set of constructs, rarely used in previous CI studies, to describe delayed recall abilities in this population.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 98%

Examining Delayed Recall in Cochlear Implant Users Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, California Verbal Learning Test, Third Edition, and Item Specific Deficit Approach: Preliminary Results

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Recent studies using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) suggest delayed recall is challenging for cochlear implant (CI) users. To better understand the underlying processes associated with delayed recall in CI users, we administered the MoCA and the California Verbal Learning Test, Third Edition (CVLT-3), which provides a more comprehensive assessment of delayed recall ability.Methods: The MoCA and CVLT-3 were administered to 18 high-performing CI users. For the CVLT-3, both the traditional scoring and a newer scoring method, the Item-Specific Deficit Approach (ISDA), were employed.Results: The original MoCA score and MoCA delayed recall subtest score did not relate to performance on any CVLT-3 measures regardless of scoring metric applied (i.e., traditional or ISDA). Encoding performance for both the CVLT-3 and ISDA were related. Consolidation, which is only distinctly defined by the ISDA, related to CVLT-3 cued delay recall performance but not free delay recall performance. Lastly, ISDA retrieval only related to CVLT-3 measures when modified.Conclusion: Performance on the MoCA and CVLT-3 in a high performing CI patient population were not related. We demonstrate that the ISDA can be successfully applied to CI users for the quantification and characterization of delayed recall ability; however, future work addressing lower performing CI users, and comparing to normal hearing controls is needed to determine the extent of potential translational applications. Our work also indicates that a modified ISDA retrieval score may be beneficial for evaluating CI users although additional work addressing the clinical relevance of this is still needed.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 98%

Examining Delayed Recall in Cochlear Implant Users Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, California Verbal Learning Test, Third Edition, and Item Specific Deficit Approach: Preliminary Results

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Listening effort is the subjective experience of the additional attentional resources needed to devote to achieving sufficient speech understanding for effective communication (Pichora-Fuller et al, 2016). Listening effort has been assessed in CI and vocoder listeners using various techniques, including the measurement of pupillary response (Winn et al, 2015), performance on a secondary task in a dual-task paradigm (Perreau et al, 2017), and self-report (Sladen et al, 2018). While these approaches generally conclude that cochlear-implant listeners require more effort to perform speech-reception tasks than their acoustic-hearing listeners, evidence is limited that these methods can distinguish between different types of processing for a given hearing-impaired individual (Ohlenforst et al, 2017).…”

Section: Effects Of Interaural Spectral Mismatchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reduced binaural fusion could have important consequences on outcomes for CI listeners. If they are not able to properly make sense of the auditory scene by perceptually organizing it into the various sound sources present, this could impair their ability to attend to a target speech in the presence of a competing background (Bernstein et al, 2016) and increase the amount of effort required for sustained auditory attention (Sladen et al, 2018). On the other hand, the fact that NH and CI listeners have been shown to be sensitive to interaural envelope correlation for narrowband or single-channel stimuli Litovsky, 2014, 2015) suggests that SSD-CI listeners might be able to perceive a diotic object as fused, despite the interaural differences in the temporal fine structure, which is discarded by CI processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counting or discriminating the number of voices to assess binaural fusion with single-sided vocoders

Wess

Spencer

Bernstein

2020

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For single-sided deafness cochlear-implant (SSD-CI) listeners, different peripheral representations for electric versus acoustic stimulation, combined with interaural frequency mismatch, might limit the ability to perceive bilaterally presented speech as a single voice. The assessment of binaural fusion often relies on subjective report, which requires listeners to have some understanding of the perceptual phenomenon of object formation. Two experiments explored whether binaural fusion could instead be assessed using judgments of the number of voices in a mixture. In an SSD-CI simulation, normal-hearing listeners were presented with one or two "diotic" voices (i.e., unprocessed in one ear and noise-vocoded in the other) in a mixture with additional monaural voices. In experiment 1, listeners reported how many voices they heard. Listeners generally counted the diotic speech as two separate voices, regardless of interaural frequency mismatch. In experiment 2, listeners identified which of two mixtures contained diotic speech. Listeners performed significantly better with interaurally frequency-matched than with frequencymismatched stimuli. These contrasting results suggest that listeners experienced partial fusion: not enough to count the diotic speech as one voice, but enough to detect its presence. The diotic-speech detection task (experiment 2) might provide a tool to evaluate fusion and optimize frequency mapping for SSD-CI patients.

show abstract

“…The primary purpose of BI-CIs is to convey cues for auditory spatial perception. Although BI-CI users have better sound localization and speech recognition in the presence of competing sounds compared to unilateral CI users [3][4][5][6] , the spatial-hearing benefits that they receive from two ears are far less than those experience by normalhearing (NH) listeners [7][8][9][10] , and they continue to struggle to communicate in noisy environments [11][12][13] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computed-tomography estimates of interaural mismatch in insertion depth and scalar location in bilateral cochlear-implant users

Goupell

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HypothesisWe hypothesized that the bilateral cochlear-implant (BI-CI) users would have a range of interaural insertion-depth mismatch because of different physical placements or characteristics of the arrays, but less than half of electrodes would have less than 75° or 3 mm of interaural insertion-depth mismatch. We also hypothesized that interaural insertion- depth mismatch would be more prevalent nearer the apex, when electrodes were located outside of scala tympani (i.e., possible interaural scalar mismatch), and when the arrays were a mix of pre-curved and straight types.BackgroundBrainstem neurons in the superior olivary complex are exquisitely sensitive to interaural differences, the cues to sound localization. These binaurally sensitive neurons rely on interaurally place-of-stimulation-matched inputs at the periphery. BI-CI users may have interaural differences in insertion depth and scalar location, causing interaural place- of-stimulation mismatch that impairs binaural abilities.MethodsInsertion depths and scalar locations were calculated from temporal-bone computed-tomography (CT) scans of 107 BI-CI users (27 Advanced Bionics, 62 Cochlear, and 18 Med-El). Each subject had either both pre-curved, both straight, or one of each type of array (mixed).ResultsThe median interaural insertion-depth mismatch was 23.4° or 1.3 mm. Relatively large interaural insertion-depth mismatch sufficient to disrupt binaural processing occurred for about 15% of electrode pairs [defined as >75° (13.0% of electrode pairs) or >3 mm (19.0% of electrode pairs)]. There was a significant three-way interaction of insertion depth, scalar location, and array type. Interaural insertion-depth mismatch was most prevalent when electrode pairs were more apically located, electrode pairs had interaural scalar mismatch (i.e., one in Scala Tympani, one in Scala Vestibuli), and when the arrays were both pre-curved.ConclusionLarge interaural insertion-depth mismatch can occur in BI-CI users. For new BI-CI users, improved surgical techniques to avoid interaural insertion-depth and scalar mismatch is recommended. For existing BI-CI users with interaural insertion-depth mismatch, interaural alignment of clinical frequency allocation tables by an audiologist might remediate any negative consequences to spatial-hearing abilities.

show abstract

Investigating Speech Recognition and listening effort with different device configurations in adult cochlear implant users

Cited by 16 publications

References 56 publications

Examining Delayed Recall in Cochlear Implant Users Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, California Verbal Learning Test, Third Edition, and Item Specific Deficit Approach: Preliminary Results

Examining Delayed Recall in Cochlear Implant Users Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, California Verbal Learning Test, Third Edition, and Item Specific Deficit Approach: Preliminary Results

Counting or discriminating the number of voices to assess binaural fusion with single-sided vocoders

Computed-tomography estimates of interaural mismatch in insertion depth and scalar location in bilateral cochlear-implant users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About