ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessEditor's AwardJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchResearch Article14 Apr 2017

Speech Recognition in Adults With Cochlear Implants: The Effects of Working Memory, Phonological Sensitivity, and Aging

    https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-H-16-0119

    Abstract

    Purpose

    Models of speech recognition suggest that “top-down” linguistic and cognitive functions, such as use of phonotactic constraints and working memory, facilitate recognition under conditions of degradation, such as in noise. The question addressed in this study was what happens to these functions when a listener who has experienced years of hearing loss obtains a cochlear implant.

    Method

    Thirty adults with cochlear implants and 30 age-matched controls with age-normal hearing underwent testing of verbal working memory using digit span and serial recall of words. Phonological capacities were assessed using a lexical decision task and nonword repetition. Recognition of words in sentences in speech-shaped noise was measured.

    Results

    Implant users had only slightly poorer working memory accuracy than did controls and only on serial recall of words; however, phonological sensitivity was highly impaired. Working memory did not facilitate speech recognition in noise for either group. Phonological sensitivity predicted sentence recognition for implant users but not for listeners with normal hearing.

    Conclusion

    Clinical speech recognition outcomes for adult implant users relate to the ability of these users to process phonological information. Results suggest that phonological capacities may serve as potential clinical targets through rehabilitative training. Such novel interventions may be particularly helpful for older adult implant users.

    References

    • Ahissar, M. (2007). Dyslexia and the anchoring-deficit hypothesis.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 458–465.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Akeroyd, M. A. (2008). 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.International Journal of Audiology, 47, S53–S71.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2006). Verbal and visuospatial short-term and working memory in children: Are they separable?.Child Development, 77, 1698–1716.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • American Academy of Ophthalmology, Pediatric Ophthalmology Strabismus Panel. (2012). Preferred Practice Pattern® guidelines. Pediatric eye evaluations.San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aao.org/ppp
      Google Scholar
    • Andersson, U. (2001). Cognitive deafness: The deterioration of phonological representations in adults with an acquired severe hearing loss and its implications for speech understanding (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Linköping University, Sweden.
      Google Scholar
    • Andersson, U., & Lyxell, B. (2007). Working memory deficit in children with mathematical difficulties: A general or specific deficit?.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 197–228.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Arehart, K. H., Souza, P., Baca, R., & Kates, J. (2013). Working memory, age and hearing loss: Susceptibility to hearing aid distortion.Ear and Hearing, 34, 251–260.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory.Science, 255, 556–559.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Boothroyd, A. (2010). Adapting to changed hearing: The potential role of formal training.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21, 601–611.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Bopp, K. L., & Verhaeghen, P. (2005). Aging and verbal memory span: A meta-analysis.Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60, P223–P233.
      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
    • Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English.Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Cervera, T. C., Soler, M. J., Dasi, C., & Ruiz, J. C. (2009). Speech recognition and working memory capacity in young-elderly listeners: Effects of hearing sensitivity.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 216–226.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Classon, E., Rudner, M., Johansson, M., & Rönnberg, J. (2013). Early ERP signature of hearing impairment in visual rhyme judgment.Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 241.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Classon, E., Rudner, M., & Rönnberg, J. (2013). Working memory compensates for hearing related phonological processing deficit.Journal of Communication Disorders, 46, 17–29.
      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.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Daneman, M., & Hannon, B. (2007). What do working memory span tasks like reading span really measure?.N. Osaka, R. H. Logie, & M. D'Esposito (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of working memory (pp. 21–42). Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570394.001.0001
      Google Scholar
    • Dawson, P. W., Busby, P. A., McKay, C. M., & Clark, G. M. (2002). Short-term auditory memory in children using cochlear implants and its relevance to receptive language.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 789–801.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Dillon, M. T., Buss, E., Adunka, M. C., King, E. R., Pillsbury, H. C., III, Adunka, O. F., & Buchman, C. A. (2013). Long-term speech perception in elderly cochlear implant users.Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery, 139, 279–283.
      Google Scholar
    • Dollaghan, C., & Campbell, T. F. (1998). Nonword repetition and child language impairment.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1136–1146.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Foo, C., Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., & Lunner, T. (2007). Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 618–631.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G., & Elberling, C. (2003). Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment.International Journal of Audiology, 42, S77–S85.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Gatehouse, S., Naylor, G., & Elberling, C. (2006). Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings—1. Patterns of benefit.International Journal of Audiology, 45, 130–152.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Geers, A. E., Pisoni, D. B., & Brenner, C. (2013). Complex working memory span in cochlear implanted and normal hearing teenagers.Otology & Neurotology, 34, 396–401.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Goldstein, E. F. (1975). Selective phonemic and semantic coding in short-term recall.Memory & Cognition, 3, 619–626.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Hällgren, M., Larsby, B., Lyxell, B., & Arlinger, S. (2001). Cognitive effects in dichotic speech testing in elderly persons.Ear and Hearing, 22, 120–129.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Holden, L. K., Finley, C. C., Firszt, J. B., Holden, T. A., Brenner, C., Potts, L. G., … Skinner, M. W. (2013). Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.Ear and Hearing, 34, 342–360.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Holden, L. K., Reeder, R. M., Firszt, J. B., & Finley, C. C. (2011). Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the advanced bionics cochlear implant system.International Journal of Audiology, 50, 255–269.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Humes, L. E. (2005). Do ‘auditory processing’ tests measure auditory processing in the elderly?.Ear and Hearing, 26, 109–119.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Ingvalson, E. M., & Wong, P. (2013). Training to improve language outcomes in cochlear implant recipients.Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 263.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Kenway, B., Tam, Y. C., Vanat, Z., Harris, F., Gray, R., Birchall, J., … Axon, P. (2015). Pitch discrimination: An independent factor in cochlear implant performance outcomes.Otology & Neurotology, 36, 1472–1479.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Kronenberger, W. G., Pisoni, D. B., Henning, S. C., Colson, B. G., & Hazzard, L. M. (2011). Working memory training for children with cochlear implants: A pilot study.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 1182–1196.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Kumar, N., & Priyadarshi, B. (2014). Differential effect of aging on verbal and visuo-spatial working memory.Aging and Disease, 4, 170–178.
      Google Scholar
    • Li, T., & Fu, Q. J. (2011). Voice gender discrimination provides a measure of more than pitch-related perception in cochlear implant users.International Journal of Audiology, 50, 498–502.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Lin, F. R., Ferrucci, L., Metter, E. J., An, Y., Zonderman, A. B., & Resnick, S. M. (2011). Hearing loss and cognition in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging.Neuropsychology, 25, 763–770.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Lin, F. R., Yaffe, K., Xia, J., Xue, Q. L., Harris, T. B., Purchase-Helzner, E., … Simonsick, E. M. (2013). Health ABC Study Group. Hearing loss and cognitive decline in older adults.Journal of the American Medical Association, Internal Medicine, 173, 293–299.
      Google Scholar
    • Lunner, T. (2003). Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use.International Journal of Audiology, 42, S49–S58.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Lunner, T., & Sundewall-Thorén, E. (2007). Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: Effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 604–617.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Luo, X., Fu, Q. J., & Galvin, J. J. (2007). Vocal emotion recognition by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users.Trends in Amplification, 11, 301–315.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Lyxell, B., Andersson, J., Andersson, U., Arlinger, S., Bredberg, G., & Harder, H. (1998). Phonological representation and speech understanding with cochlear implants in deafened adults.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 175–179.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Lyxell, B., Andersson, U., Borg, E., & Ohlsson, I. S. (2003). Working-memory capacity and phonological processing in deafened adults and individuals with a severe hearing impairment.International Journal of Audiology, 42, S86–S89.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Mann, V. A., & Liberman, I. Y. (1984). Phonological awareness and verbal short-term memory.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 592–599.
      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
    • Moberly, A. C., Lowenstein, J. H., & Nittrouer, S. (2016). Word recognition variability with cochlear implants: The degradation of phonemic sensitivity.Otology & Neurotology, 37, 470–477.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Mullennix, J. W., Pisoni, D. B., & Martin, C. S. (1989). Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 365–378.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085–1099.
      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., Caldwell-Tarr, A., & Lowenstein, J. H. (2013). Working memory in children with cochlear implants: Problems are in storage, not processing.International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 77, 1886–1898.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Nittrouer, S., & Lowenstein, J. H. (2010). Learning to perceptually organize speech signals in native fashion.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127, 1624–1635.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Nittrouer, S., Lowenstein, J. H., Wucinich, T., & Moberly, A. C. (2016). Verbal working memory in older adults: The roles of phonological capacities and processing speed.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59, 1520–1532.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Nittrouer, S., & Miller, M. E. (1999). The development of phonemic coding strategies for serial recall.Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 563–588.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Oba, S. I., Galvin, J. J., III, & Fu, Q. J. (2013). Minimal effects of visual memory training on the auditory performance of adult cochlear implant users.Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 50, 99–110.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Souza, P. E. (2003). Effects of aging on auditory processing of speech.International Journal of Audiology, 42, 11–16.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Pickering, S. J. (2001). The development of visuo-spatial working memory.Memory, 9, 423–432.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Piquado, T., Benichov, J. I., Brownell, H., & Wingfield, A. (2012). The hidden effect of hearing acuity on speech recall, and compensatory effects of self-paced listening.International Journal of Audiology, 51, 576–583.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Pisoni, D. B. (1997). Some thoughts on “normalization” in speech perception.In K. Johnson & J. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 9–32). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Pisoni, D. B. (2014). Rapid phonological coding and working memory dynamics in children with cochlear implants.In A. W. Farris-Trimble & J. A. Barlow (Eds.), Language acquisition and language disorders: Vol. 56. Perspectives on phonological theory and development: In honor of Daniel A. Dinnsen (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
      Google Scholar
    • Pisoni, D. B., & Cleary, M. (2003). Measures of working memory span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation.Ear and Hearing, 24(1, Suppl.), 106S.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Repovš, G., & Baddeley, A. (2006). The multi-component model of working memory: Explorations in experimental cognitive psychology.Neuroscience, 139, 5–21.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A., Sörqvist, P., Danielsson, H., Lyxell, B., … Rudner, M. (2013). The ease of language understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances.Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7(31), 1–17.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Rudner, M., Foo, C., Sundewall-Thorén, E., Lunner, T., & Rönnberg, J. (2008). Phonological mismatch and explicit cognitive processing in a sample of 102 hearing-aid users.International Journal of Audiology, 47, 91–98.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Rudner, M., Rönnberg, J., & Lunner, T. (2011). Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 22, 156–167.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Schvartz, K. C., Chatterjee, M., & Gordon-Salant, S. (2008). Recognition of spectrally degraded phonemes by younger, middle-aged, and older normal-hearing listeners.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 3972–3988.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Spring, C., & Perry, L. (1983). Naming speed and serial recall in poor and adequate readers.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 141–145.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Tao, D., Deng, R., Jiang, Y., Galvin, J. J., III, Fu, Q. J., & Chen, B. (2014). Contribution of auditory working memory to speech understanding in Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.PLoS ONE, 9, e99096.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Van Rooij, J. C. G. M., & Plomp, R. (1990). Auditive and cognitive factors in speech perception by elderly listeners. II. Multivariate analyses.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 2611–2624.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Wechsler, D. (1991). WISC-III: Wechsler intelligence scale for children (Manual). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
      Google Scholar
    • Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). WRAT 4: Wide range achievement test (Professional manual). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
      Google Scholar
    • Wilson, R. S., Leurgans, S. E., Boyle, P. A., Schneider, J. A., & Bennett, D. A. (2010). Neurodegenerative basis of age-related cognitive decline.Neurology, 75, 1070–1078.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

    Additional Resources