Phonological Priming in Children with Hearing Loss: Effect of Speech Mode, Fidelity, and Lexical Status

Abstract

Objectives Our research determined 1) how phonological priming of picture naming was affected by the mode (auditory-visual [AV] vs auditory), fidelity (intact vs non-intact auditory onsets), and lexical status (words vs nonwords) of speech stimuli in children with prelingual sensorineural hearing impairment (CHI) vs. children with normal hearing (CNH); and 2) how the degree of hearing impairment (HI), auditory word recognition, and age influenced results in CHI. Note that some of our AV stimuli were not the traditional bimodal input but instead they consisted of an intact consonant/rhyme in the visual track coupled to a non-intact onset/rhyme in the auditory track. Example stimuli for the word bag are: 1) AV: intact visual (b/ag) coupled to non-intact auditory (−b/ag) and 2) Auditory: static face coupled to the same non-intact auditory (−b/ag). Our question was whether the intact visual speech would “restore or fill-in” the non-intact auditory speech in which case performance for the same auditory stimulus would differ depending upon the presence/absence of visual speech. Design Participants were 62 CHI and 62 CNH whose ages had a group-mean and -distribution akin to that in the CHI group. Ages ranged from 4 to 14 years. All participants met the following criteria: 1) spoke English as a native language, 2) communicated successfully aurally/orally, and 3) had no diagnosed or suspected disabilities other than HI and its accompanying verbal problems. The phonological priming of picture naming was assessed with the multi-modal picture word task. Results Both CHI and CNH showed greater phonological priming from high than low fidelity stimuli and from AV than auditory speech. These overall fidelity and mode effects did not differ in the CHI vs. CNH—thus these CHI appeared to have sufficiently well specified phonological onset representations to support priming and visual speech did not appear to be a disproportionately important source of the CHI’s phonological knowledge. Two exceptions occurred, however. First—with regard to lexical status—both the CHI and CNH showed significantly greater phonological priming from the nonwords than words, a pattern consistent with the prediction that children are more aware of phonetics-phonology content for nonwords. This overall pattern of similarity between the groups was qualified by the finding that CHI showed more nearly equal priming by the high vs. low fidelity nonwords than the CNH; in other words, the CHI were less affected by the fidelity of the auditory input for nonwords. Second, auditory word recognition—but not degree of HI or age—uniquely influenced phonological priming by the nonwords presented AV. Conclusions With minor exceptions, phonological priming in CHI and CNH showed more similarities than differences. Importantly, we documented that the addition of visual speech significantly increased phonological priming in both groups. Clinically these data support intervention programs that view visual speech as a powerful asset for developing spoken language in C...

Phonological Priming as a Lens for Phonological Organization in Children With Cochlear Implants

“…Contrary to the findings of this study, Jerger et al (2016) concluded that children with hearing loss responded similarly to phonological primes as compared to children with typical hearing. Differences in findings may be related to methodological differences between these studies.…”

“…Differences in findings may be related to methodological differences between these studies. The Jerger et al (2016) study included participants with a range of hearing losses (and consequently, who wore a range of devices) who were between the ages of 4 and 15 years. The present study evaluated only children with cochlear implants between the ages of 5 and 7 years.…”

“…The present study evaluated only children with cochlear implants between the ages of 5 and 7 years. Jerger et al (2016) primed children’s responses with both words and nonwords, rather than word onsets, whereas this study used only word onsets as primes. Differences in these populations in age and amplification type may be expected to yield different phonological priming results (Rigler et al 2015).…”

“…It is possible that processing delays are the result of processing a degraded sound signal via the cochlear implant device (McMurray et al 2018); however, lexical organization strategies could also contribute to response delays. Jerger et al (2016) specifically assessed the effects of phonological priming in children with hearing loss as compared with children with typical hearing between the ages of four and fourteen. Results demonstrated that children with hearing loss experienced priming effects similar to children with typical hearing, and those children with better auditory word recognition scores experienced priming effects more strongly than children who had worse recognition scores.…”

“…Jerger et al (2016) specifically assessed the effects of phonological priming in children with hearing loss as compared with children with typical hearing between the ages of four and fourteen. Results demonstrated that children with hearing loss experienced priming effects similar to children with typical hearing, and those children with better auditory word recognition scores experienced priming effects more strongly than children who had worse recognition scores.…”