ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessEditor's AwardJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchResearch Article1 Feb 2013

Speech Perception in Noise by Children With Cochlear Implants

    https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0338)

    Abstract

    Purpose

    Common wisdom suggests that listening in noise poses disproportionately greater difficulty for listeners with cochlear implants (CIs) than for peers with normal hearing (NH). The purpose of this study was to examine phonological, language, and cognitive skills that might help explain speech-in-noise abilities for children with CIs.

    Method

    Three groups of kindergartners (NH, hearing aid wearers, and CI users) were tested on speech recognition in quiet and noise and on tasks thought to underlie the abilities that fit into the domains of phonological awareness, general language, and cognitive skills. These last measures were used as predictor variables in regression analyses with speech-in-noise scores as dependent variables.

    Results

    Compared to children with NH, children with CIs did not perform as well on speech recognition in noise or on most other measures, including recognition in quiet. Two surprising results were that (a) noise effects were consistent across groups and (b) scores on other measures did not explain any group differences in speech recognition.

    Conclusions

    Limitations of implant processing take their primary toll on recognition in quiet and account for poor speech recognition and language/phonological deficits in children with CIs. Implications are that teachers/clinicians need to teach language/phonology directly and maximize signal-to-noise levels in the classroom.

    References

    • Ahissar, M. (2007). Dyslexia and the anchoring-deficit hypothesis.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 458–465.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Ahissar, M., Lubin, Y., Putter-Katz, H., & Banai, K. (2006). Dyslexia and the failure to form a perceptual anchor.Nature Neuroscience, 9, 1558–1564.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Baer, T., Moore, B. C., & Gatehouse, S. (1993). Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: Effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times.Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 30, 49–72.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Bernstein, J. G., & Brungart, D. S. (2011). Effects of spectral smearing and temporal fine-structure distortion on the fluctuating-masker benefit for speech at a fixed signal-to-noise ratio.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 473–488.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Boothroyd, A. (1968). Statistical theory of the speech discrimination score.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 43, 362–367.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Boothroyd, A. (1984). Auditory perception of speech contrasts by subjects with sensorineural hearing loss.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 134–144.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Boothroyd, A., Mulhearn, B., Gong, J., & Ostroff, J. (1996). Effects of spectral smearing on phoneme and word recognition.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 100, 1807–1818.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Boothroyd, A., & Nittrouer, S. (1988). Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 101–114.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Bradlow, A. R., & Pisoni, D. B. (1999). Recognition of spoken words by native and non-native listeners: Talker-, listener-, and item-related factors.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2074–2085.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Brady, S., Shankweiler, D., & Mann, V. (1983). Speech perception and memory coding in relation to reading ability.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 35, 345–367.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Breier, J. I., Gray, L., Fletcher, J. M., Diehl, R. L., Klaas, P., Foorman, B. R., & Molis, M. R. (2001). Perception of voice and tone onset time continua in children with dyslexia with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 245–270.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Brownell, R. (2000). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Novato, CA: Academic Therapy.
      Google Scholar
    • Burkholder, R. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (2003). Speech timing and working memory in profoundly deaf children after cochlear implantation.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 63–88.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Carroll, J., Tiaden, S., & Zeng, F. G. (2011). Fundamental frequency is critical to speech perception in noise in combined acoustic and electric hearing.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 2054–2062.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Cleary, M., Pisoni, D. B., & Geers, A. E. (2001). Some measures of verbal and spatial working memory in eight- and nine-year-old hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants.Ear and Hearing, 22, 395–411.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Cutler, A., Garcia Lecumberri, M. L., & Cooke, M. (2008). Consonant identification in noise by native and non-native listeners: Effects of local context.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 1264–1268.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Davidson, L. S., Geers, A. E., Blamey, P. J., Tobey, E. A., & Brenner, C. A. (2011). Factors contributing to speech perception scores in long-term pediatric cochlear implant users.Ear and Hearing, 32, 19S–26S.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Firszt, J. B., Holden, L. K., Skinner, M. W., Tobey, E. A., Peterson, A., Gaggl, W., & Wackym, P. A. (2004). Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems.Ear and Hearing, 25, 375–387.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Flege, J. E., MacKay, I. R., & Meador, D. (1999). Native Italian speakers' perception and production of English vowels.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 2973–2987.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Baskent, D., & Wang, X. (2001). Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 1150–1163.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Fu, Q. J., Shannon, R. V., & Wang, X. (1998). Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 3586–3596.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Gaab, N., Gabrieli, J. D., Deutsch, G. K., Tallal, P., & Temple, E. (2007). Neural correlates of rapid auditory processing are disrupted in children with developmental dyslexia and ameliorated with training: An fMRI study.Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 25, 295–310.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Geers, A. E., & Hayes, H. (2011). Reading, writing, and phonological processing skills of adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience.Ear and Hearing, 32, 49S–59S.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Giezen, M. R., Escudero, P., & Baker, A. (2010). Use of acoustic cues by children with cochlear implants.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 1440–1457.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Glasberg, B. R., & Moore, B. C. (1986). Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79, 1020–1033.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Godfrey, J. J., Syrdal-Lasky, A. K., Millay, K. K., & Knox, C. M. (1981). Performance of dyslexic children on speech perception tests.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 401–424.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Hayes, H., Geers, A. E., Treiman, R., & Moog, J. S. (2009). Receptive vocabulary development in deaf children with cochlear implants: Achievement in an intensive auditory-oral educational setting.Ear and Hearing, 30, 128–135.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Hirsh, I. J., Reynolds, E. G., & Joseph, M. (1954). Intelligibility of different speech materials.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 26, 530–538.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Hochberg, I., Boothroyd, A., Weiss, M., & Hellman, S. (1992). Effects of noise and noise suppression on speech perception by cochlear implant users.Ear and Hearing, 13, 263–271.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • James, D., Rajput, K., Brinton, J., & Goswami, U. (2009). Orthographic influences, vocabulary development, and phonological awareness in deaf children who use cochlear implants.Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 659–684.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Johnson, C., & Goswami, U. (2010). Phonological awareness, vocabulary, and reading in deaf children with cochlear implants.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 237–261.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Leek, M. R., Dorman, M. F., & Summerfield, Q. (1987). Minimum spectral contrast for vowel identification by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 81, 148–154.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Lorenzi, C., Gilbert, G., Carn, H., Garnier, S., & Moore, B. C. J. (2006). Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 18866–18869.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Mackersie, C. L., Boothroyd, A., & Minniear, D. (2001). Evaluation of the Computer-Assisted Speech Perception Assessment Test (CASPA).Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 12, 390–396.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Manis, F. R., McBride-Chang, C., Seidenberg, M. S., Keating, P., Doi, L. M., Munson, B., & Petersen, A. (1997). Are speech perception deficits associated with developmental dyslexia?.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 211–235.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Merzenich, M. M., Jenkins, W. M., Johnston, P., Schreiner, C., Miller, S. L., & Tallal, P. (1996, January5). Temporal processing deficits of language-learning impaired children ameliorated by training.Science, 271, 77–81.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Miller, G. A., Heise, G. A., & Lichten, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 329–335.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Niparko, J. K., Tobey, E. A., Thal, D. J., Eisenberg, L. S., Wang, N. Y., & Quittner, A. L., … CDaCl Investigative Team (2010). Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation.Journal of the American Medical Association, 303, 1498–1506.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Nittrouer, S. (1999). Do temporal processing deficits cause phonological processing problems?.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 925–942.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Nittrouer, S. (2010). Early development of children with hearing loss. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.
      Google Scholar
    • Nittrouer, S., & Boothroyd, A. (1990). Context effects in phoneme and word recognition by young children and older adults.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2705–2715.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Nittrouer, S., & Burton, L. T. (2005). The role of early language experience in the development of speech perception and phonological processing abilities: Evidence from 5-year-olds with histories of otitis media with effusion and low socioeconomic status.Journal of Communication Disorders, 38, 29–63.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Nittrouer, S., & Miller, M. E. (1999). The development of phonemic coding strategies for serial recall.Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 563–588.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Nittrouer, S., Shune, S., & Lowenstein, J. H. (2011). What is the deficit in phonological processing deficits: Auditory sensitivity, masking, or category formation?.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 762–785.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Pinet, M., & Iverson, P. (2010). Talker–listener accent interactions in speech-in-noise recognition: Effects of prosodic manipulation as a function of language experience.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, 1357–1365.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Pisoni, D. B., Kronenberger, W. G., Roman, A. S., & Geers, A. E. (2011). Measures of digit span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after more than 10 years of cochlear implantation.Ear and Hearing, 32, 60S–74S.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Pollack, I., Rubenstein, H., & Decker, L. (1959). Intelligibility of known and unknown message sets.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 31, 273–279.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Revoile, S. G., Pickett, J. M., & Kozma-Spyteck, L. (1991). Spectral cues to perception of /d, n, l/ by normal- and impaired-hearing listeners.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 787–798.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Rogers, C. L., Lister, J. J., Febo, D. M., Besing, J. M., & Abrams, H. B. (2006). Effects of bilingualism, noise, and reverberation on speech perception by listeners with normal hearing.Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 465–485.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Rubinstein, J. T. (2004). How cochlear implants encode speech.Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, 12, 444–448.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Serniclaes, W., Ventura, P., Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (2005). Categorical perception of speech sounds in illiterate adults.Cognition, 98, B35–B44.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Cramer, B. B. (1984). Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 175–190.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Tallal, P. (1980). Auditory temporal perception, phonics, and reading disabilities in children.Brain and Language, 9, 182–198.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Tallal, P., Miller, S., & Fitch, R. H. (1993). Neurobiological basis of speech: A case for the preeminence of temporal processing.In P. Tallal (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 682. Temporal information processing in the central nervous system: Special reference to dyslexia and dysphasia (pp. 27–47). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.
      Google Scholar
    • Tallal, P., & Piercy, M. (1973, February16). Defects of non-verbal auditory perception in children with developmental aphasia.Nature, 241, 468–469.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Tallal, P., & Piercy, M. (1974). Developmental aphasia: Rate of auditory processing and selective impairment of consonant perception.Neuropsychologia, 12, 83–93.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Tomblin, J. B., Spencer, L., Flock, S., Tyler, R., & Gantz, B. (1999). A comparison of language achievement in children with cochlear implants and children using hearing aids.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 497–511.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Vance, M., & Martindale, N. (2011). Assessing speech perception in children with language difficulties: Effects of background noise and phonetic contrast.International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 48–58.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • von Hapsburg, D., Champlin, C. A., & Shetty, S. R. (2004). Reception thresholds for sentences in bilingual (Spanish/English) and monolingual (English) listeners.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 15, 88–98.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
      Google Scholar
    • Zeng, F. G., & Galvin, J. (1999). Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners.Ear and Hearing, 20, 60–74.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Ziegler, J. C., Pech-Georgel, C., George, F., Alario, F. X., & Lorenzi, C. (2005). Deficits in speech perception predict language learning impairment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 14110–14115.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Ziegler, J. C., Pech-Georgel, C., George, F., & Lorenzi, C. (2011). Noise on, voicing off: Speech perception deficits in children with specific language impairment.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 362–372.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2002). Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources