Predicting Speech Recognition Using the Speech Intelligibility Index and Other Variables for Cochlear Implant Users
Publication: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume 62, Number 5
Pages 1517-1531
Abstract
Purpose
Although the speech intelligibility index (SII) has been widely applied in the field of audiology and other related areas, application of this metric to cochlear implants (CIs) has yet to be investigated. In this study, SIIs for CI users were calculated to investigate whether the SII could be an effective tool for predicting speech perception performance in a population with CI.
Method
Fifteen pre- and postlingually deafened adults with CI participated. Speech recognition scores were measured using the AzBio sentence lists. CI users also completed questionnaires and performed psychoacoustic (spectral and temporal resolution) and cognitive function (digit span) tests. Obtained SIIs were compared with predicted SIIs using a transfer function curve. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted on perceptual and demographic predictor variables to investigate the association between these factors and speech perception performance.
Result
Because of the considerably poor hearing and large individual variability in performance, the SII did not predict speech performance for this CI group using the traditional calculation. However, new SII models were developed incorporating predictive factors, which improved the accuracy of SII predictions in listeners with CI.
Conclusion
Conventional SII models are not appropriate for predicting speech perception scores for CI users. Demographic variables (aided audibility and duration of deafness) and perceptual–cognitive skills (gap detection and auditory digit span outcomes) are needed to improve the use of the SII for listeners with CI. Future studies are needed to improve our CI-corrected SII model by considering additional predictive factors.
Supplemental Material
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
American National Standards Institute. (1997). Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index (ANSI S3.5-1997) . New York, NY: Acoustical Society of America.
American National Standards Institute. (1999). American national standard maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test rooms ANSI S3.1-1999 (R2013). New York, NY: Acoustic Society of America.
Aronoff, J. M., & Landsberger, D. M. (2013). The development of a modified Spectral Ripple Test. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(2), EL217–EL222.
AuBuchon, A. M., Pisoni, D. B., & Kronenberger, W. G. (2015). Short-term and working memory impairments in early-implanted, long-term cochlear implant users are independent of audibility and speech production. Ear and Hearing, 36(6), 733–737.
Baddeley, A. (1993). Working memory and conscious awareness. In Collins, A. F., Gathercole, S. E., Conway, M. A., & Morris, P. E. (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 11–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89.
Bentler, R. A., & Pavlovic, C. V. (1989). Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research. Ear and Hearing, 10(1), 58–63.
Bidelman, G. M., Jennings, S. G., & Strickland, E. A. (2015). PsyAcoustX: A flexible MATLAB® package for psychoacoustics research [Technology report]. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1498.
Bidelman, G. M., Lowther, J. E., Tak, S. H., & Alain, C. (2017). Mild cognitive impairment is characterized by deficient brainstem and cortical representations of speech. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(13), 3610–3620.
Bidelman, G. M., Villafuerte, J. W., Moreno, S., & Alain, C. (2014). Age-related changes in the subcortical–cortical encoding and categorical perception of speech. Neurobiology of Aging, 35(11), 2526–2540.
Blamey, P., Arndt, P., Bergeron, F., Bredberg, G., Brimacombe, J., Facer, G., … Whitford, L. (1996). Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiology and Neurootology, 1(5), 293–306.
Bosen, A. K., & Chatterjee, M. (2016). Band importance functions of listeners with cochlear implants using clinical maps. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(5), 3718–3727.
Burkholder, R. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (2006). Working memory capacity, verbal rehearsal speed, and scanning in deaf children with cochlear implants. In Spencer, P. E. & Marschark, M. (Eds.), Advances in the spoken language development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children (pp. 328–357). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bush, L. C. (2016). List equivalency of the AzBio Sentence Test. Honors Theses Paper, 419.
Ching, T. Y., Dillon, H., & Byrne, D. (1998). Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: Predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103(2), 1128–1140.
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(5), 395–411.
Cohen, M. A., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2009). Auditory recognition memory is inferior to visual recognition memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(14), 6008–6010.
Collison, E. A., Munson, B., & Carney, A. E. (2004). Relations among linguistic and cognitive skills and spoken word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(3), 496–508.
Daya, H., Figueirido, J. C., Gordon, K. A., Twitchell, K., Gysin, C., & Papsin, B. C. (1999). The role of a graded profile analysis in determining candidacy and outcome for cochlear implantation in children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 49(2), 135–142.
Draine, S. (1998). Inquisit [Computer software] . Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software.
Firszt, J. B., Holden, L. K., Skinner, M. W., Tobey, E. A., Peterson, A., & Gaggl, W. (2004). Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear and Hearing, 25(4), 375–387.
Fletcher, H., & Galt, R. H. (1950). The perception of speech and its relation to telephony. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22(2), 89–151.
Florentine, M., & Buus, S. (1984). Temporal gap detection in sensorineural and simulated hearing impairments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 449–455.
French, N. R., & Steinberg, J. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 19(1), 90–119.
Fu, Q.-J., & Shannon, R. V. (2000). Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by Nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(1), 589–597.
Geers, A. E., Pisoni, D. B., & Brenner, C. (2013). Complex working memory span in cochlear implanted and normal hearing teenagers. Otology & Neurotology, 34(3), 396–401.
Goldsworthy, R. L., Delhorne, L. A., Braida, L. D., & Reed, C. M. (2013). Psychoacoustic and phoneme identification measures in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners. Trends in Amplification, 17(1), 27–44.
Gordon, K. A., Daya, H., Harrison, R. V., & Papsin, B. C. (2000). Factors contributing to limited open-set speech perception in children who use a cochlear implant. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 56(2), 101–111.
Green, K. M., Bhatt, Y., Mawman, D. J., O'Driscoll, M. P., Saeed, S. R., & Ramsden, R. T. (2007). Predictors of audiological outcome following cochlear implantation in adults. Cochlear Implants International, 8(1), 1–11.
Henry, B. A., & Turner, C. W. (2003). The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(5), 2861–2873.
Henry, B. A., Turner, C. W., & Behrens, A. (2005). Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: Normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(2), 1111–1121.
Hilton, E. (2001). Differences in visual and auditory short-term memory. IU South Bend Undergraduate Research Journal, 4, 47–50.
Holden, L. K., Finley, C. C., Firszt, J. B., Holden, T. A., Brenner, C., & Potts, L. G. (2013). Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 34(3), 342–360.
Kemtes, K. A., & Allen, D. N. (2008). Presentation modality influences WAIS Digit Span performance in younger and older adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 30(6), 661–665.
Kiefer, J., von Ilberg, C., Reimer, B., Knecht, R., Gall, V., & Diller, G. (1998). Results of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound hearing loss—Implications for patient selection. International Journal of Audiology, 37(6), 382–395.
Kirby, A. E., & Middlebrooks, J. C. (2010). Auditory temporal acuity probed with cochlear implant stimulation and cortical recording. Journal of Neurophysiology, 103(1), 531–542.
Kronenberger, W. G., Pisoni, D. B., Henning, S. C., & Colson, B. G. (2013). Executive functioning skills in long-term users of cochlear implants: A case control study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 38(8), 902–914.
Lawler, M., Yu, J., & Aronoff, J. M. (2017). Comparison of the spectral-temporally modulated ripple test with the Arizona Biomedical Institute Sentence Test in cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing, 38(6), 760–766.
Lee, S., & Mendel, L. L. (2016). Effect of the number of maxima and stimulation rate on phoneme perception patterns using cochlear implant simulation. Clinical Arichives of Communication Disorders, 1(1), 87–100.
Lee, S., & Mendel, L. L. (2017). Derivation of frequency importance functions for the AzBio sentences. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(6), 3416–3427.
Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up–down methods in psychoacoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49(2B), 467–477.
Litvak, L. M., Spahr, A. J., Saoji, A. A., & Fridman, G. Y. (2007). Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(2), 982–991.
Lorenzi, C., Gilbert, G., Carn, H., Garnier, S., & Moore, B. C. (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(49), 18866–18869.
Ludvigsen, C. (1987). Prediction of speech intelligibility for normal-hearing and cochlearly hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82(4), 1162–1171.
Macherey, O., & Carlyon, R. P. (2014). Cochlear implants. Current Biology, 24(18), R878–R884.
Moberly, A. C., Harris, M. S., Boyce, L., & Nittrouer, S. (2017). Speech recognition in adults with cochlear implants: The effects of working memory, phonological sensitivity, and aging. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60, 1046–1061.
Moberly, A. C., Lowenstein, J. H., Tarr, E., Caldwell-Tarr, A., Welling, D. B., Shahin, A. J., & Nittrouer, S. (2014). Do adults with cochlear implants rely on different acoustic cues for phoneme perception than adults with normal hearing? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 566–582.
Nie, K., Barco, A., & Zeng, F.-G. (2006). Spectral and temporal cues in cochlear implant speech perception. Ear and Hearing, 27(2), 208–217.
Oxenham, A. J., Bernstein, J. G., & Penagos, H. (2004). Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(5), 1421–1425.
Pavlovic, C. V. (1987). Derivation of primary parameters and procedures for use in speech intelligibility predictions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82(2), 413–422.
Pavlovic, C. V., Studebaker, G. A., & Sherbecoe, R. L. (1986). An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80(1), 50–57.
Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 17(4), 398–422.
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–120S.
Pisoni, D. B., Cleary, M., Geers, A. E., & Tobey, E. A. (1999). Individual differences in effectiveness of cochlear implants in children who are prelingually deaf: New process measures of performance. The Volta Review, 101(3), 111–164.
Pisoni, D. B., & Geers, A. E. (2000). Working memory in deaf children with cochlear implants: Correlations between digit span and measures of spoken language processing. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 185, 92–93.
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(1, Suppl.), 60S–74S.
Schafer, E., & Utrup, A. (2016). The effect of age of cochlear implantation on speech intelligibility to others. Journal of Educational, Pediatric & (Re)Habilitative Audiology, 22, 1–11.
Shannon, R. V. (1989). Detection of gaps in sinusoids and pulse trains by patients with cochlear implants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85(6), 2587–2592.
Shannon, R. V., Zeng, F.-G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J., & Ekelid, M. (1995). Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science, 270(5234), 303–304.
Sherbecoe, R. L., & Studebaker, G. A. (2003). Audibility-index predictions of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners' performance on the connected speech test. Ear and Hearing, 24(1), 71–88.
Smith, Z. M., Delgutte, B., & Oxenham, A. J. (2002). Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature, 416(6876), 87–90.
Spahr, A. J., & Dorman, M. F. (2005). Effects of minimum stimulation settings for the Med El Tempo+ speech processor on speech understanding. Ear and Hearing, 26(4), 2S–6S.
Studebaker, G. A., Gray, G. A., & Branch, W. E. (1999). Prediction and statistical evaluation of speech recognition test scores. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10(7), 355–370.
Studebaker, G. A., Sherbecoe, R. L., McDaniel, D. M., & Gray, G. A. (1997). Age-related changes in monosyllabic word recognition performance when audibility is held constant. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 8(3), 150–162.
Svirsky, M. A., Teoh, S. W., & Neuburger, H. (2004). Development of language and speech perception in congenitally, profoundly deaf children as a function of age at cochlear implantation. Audiology and Neurootology, 9, 224–233.
Tong, Y. C., Busby, P. A., & Clark, G. M. (1998). Perceptual studies on cochlear implant patients with early onset of profound hearing impairment prior to normal development of auditory, speech, and language skills. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 951–962.
Vandali, A. E., Whitford, L. A., Plant, K. L., & Clark, G. M. (2000). Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear and Hearing, 21(6), 608–624.
van Dijk, J. E., van Olphen, A. F., Langereis, M. C., Mens, L. H., Brokx, J. P., & Smoorenburg, G. F. (1999). Predictors of cochlear implant performance. International Journal of Audiology, 38(2), 109–116.
Wechsler, D., & De Lemos, M. M. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Winn, M. B., Won, J. H., & Moon, I. J. (2016). Assessment of spectral and temporal resolution in cochlear implant users using psychoacoustic discrimination and speech cue categorization. Ear and Hearing, 37(6), e377–e390.
Won, J. H., Drennan, W. R., & Rubinstein, J. T. (2007). Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 8(3), 384–392.
Xu, L., & Zheng, Y. (2007). Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(3), 1758–1764.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume 62 • Number 5 • May 2019
Pages: 1517-1531
PubMed: 31058575
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
History
- Received: Jul 25, 2018
- Revised: Nov 2, 2018
- Accepted: Dec 18, 2018
- Published online: May 13, 2019
- Published in issue: May 21, 2019
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Metrics
View all metricsCitations
Download article citation data for:
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
Citing Literature
- Andreas Fellner, Cornelia Wenger, Amirreza Heshmat, Frank Rattay, Auditory nerve fiber excitability for alternative electrode placement in the obstructed human cochlea: electrode insertion in scala vestibuli versus scala tympani, Journal of Neural Engineering, 10.1088/1741-2552/ad6597, 21, 4, (046034), (2024).
- Loes Beckers, Nikki Tromp, Birgit Philips, Emmanuel Mylanus, Wendy Huinck, Exploring neurocognitive factors and brain activation in adult cochlear implant recipients associated with speech perception outcomes—A scoping review, Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10.3389/fnins.2023.1046669, 17, (2023).
- Lars Lambriks, Marc van Hoof, Erwin George, Elke Devocht, Extending the audiogram with loudness growth: The complementarity of electric and acoustic hearing in bimodal patients, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0277161, 18, 4, (e0277161), (2023).
- Sungmin Lee, Soo Jung Lee, Perceptual Loudness Growth in Cochlear Implant Users, Audiology and Speech Research, 10.21848/asr.220053, 18, 2, (109-117), (2022).
- Sungmin Lee, Sound Localization in Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users, Audiology and Speech Research, 10.21848/asr.220001, 18, 3, (172-182), (2022).
- Joseph Bochner, Vincent Samar, Emily Prud'hommeaux, Matt Huenerfauth, Phoneme Categorization in Prelingually Deaf Adult Cochlear Implant Users, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00038, 65, 11, (4429-4453), (2022).
- Yannam Vasantha Koteswararao, C. B. Rama Rao, Single channel source separation using time–frequency non-negative matrix factorization and sigmoid base normalization deep neural networks, Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing, 10.1007/s11045-022-00830-2, 33, 3, (1023-1043), (2022).
- Özkan ARSLAN, Determination of Optimum Parameters for Cochlear Implants Speech Processors by Using Objective Measures, El-Cezeri Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, 10.31202/ecjse.1011025, (2021).
- Nikolai Bernhard, Ulrich Gauger, Eugenia Romo Ventura, Florian C. Uecker, Heidi Olze, Steffen Knopke, Toni Hänsel, Annekatrin Coordes, Duration of deafness impacts auditory performance after cochlear implantation: A meta‐analysis, Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 10.1002/lio2.528, 6, 2, (291-301), (2021).
- Cibele Aparecida da Silva Andrade, Marilia Rodrigues Freitas de Souza, Maria Cecília Martinelli Iorio, Reconhecimento de fala e índice de inteligibilidade de fala em usuários de próteses auditivas intra-aurais: um estudo comparativo, Audiology - Communication Research, 10.1590/2317-6431-2020-2362, 25, (2020).
View Options
Sign In Options
ASHA member? If so, log in with your ASHA website credentials for full access.
Member Login