ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchResearch Article15 Aug 2019

Making Sense of Sentences: Top-Down Processing of Speech by Adult Cochlear Implant Users

    https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-H-18-0472

    Abstract

    Purpose

    Speech recognition relies upon a listener's successful pairing of the acoustic–phonetic details from the bottom-up input with top-down linguistic processing of the incoming speech stream. When the speech is spectrally degraded, such as through a cochlear implant (CI), this role of top-down processing is poorly understood. This study explored the interactions of top-down processing, specifically the use of semantic context during sentence recognition, and the relative contributions of different neurocognitive functions during speech recognition in adult CI users.

    Method

    Data from 41 experienced adult CI users were collected and used in analyses. Participants were tested for recognition and immediate repetition of speech materials in the clear. They were asked to repeat 2 sets of sentence materials, 1 that was semantically meaningful and 1 that was syntactically appropriate but semantically anomalous. Participants also were tested on 4 visual measures of neurocognitive functioning to assess working memory capacity (Digit Span; Wechsler, 2004), speed of lexical access (Test of Word Reading Efficiency; Torgeson, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999), inhibitory control (Stroop; Stroop, 1935), and nonverbal fluid reasoning (Raven's Progressive Matrices; Raven, 2000).

    Results

    Individual listeners' inhibitory control predicted recognition of meaningful sentences when controlling for performance on anomalous sentences, our proxy for the quality of the bottom-up input. Additionally, speed of lexical access and nonverbal reasoning predicted recognition of anomalous sentences.

    Conclusions

    Findings from this study identified inhibitory control as a potential mechanism at work when listeners make use of semantic context during sentence recognition. Moreover, speed of lexical access and nonverbal reasoning were associated with recognition of sentences that lacked semantic context. These results motivate the development of improved comprehensive rehabilitative approaches for adult patients with CIs to optimize use of top-down processing and underlying core neurocognitive functions.

    References

    • 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(Suppl. 2), S53–S71.
      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
    • 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, 733–737.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory.Science, 255, 556–559.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Bilger, R. C., Nuetzel, J. M., Rabinowitz, W. M., & Rzeczkowski, C. (1984). Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 27(1), 32–48.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Boothroyd, A., Hanin, L., & Hnath, T. (1985). CUNY laser videodisk of everyday sentences. New York: Speech and Hearing Sciences Research Center, City University of New York.
      Google Scholar
    • Carroll, R., Uslar, V., Brand, T., & Ruigendijk, E. (2016). Processing mechanisms in hearing-impaired listeners: Evidence from reaction times and sentence interpretation.Ear and Hearing, 37, e391–e401.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Classon, E., Rudner, M., & Rönnberg, J. (2013). Working memory compensates for hearing related phonological processing deficit.Journal of Communication Disorders, 46(1), 17–29.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Cleary, M., Pisoni, D. B., & Kirk, K. I. (2000). Working memory spans as predictors of spoken word recognition and receptive vocabulary in children with cochlear implants.The Volta Review, 102(4), 259–280.
      MedlineGoogle 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
    • Farris-Trimble, A., McMurray, B., Cigrand, N., & Tomblin, J. B. (2014). The process of spoken word recognition in the face of signal degradation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 308–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034353
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle 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(3), 189–198.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Gantz, B. J., Woodworth, G. G., Knutson, J. F., Abbas, P. J., & Tyler, R. S. (1993). Multivariate predictors of success with cochlear implants.In B. Fraysse & O. Deguine (Eds.), Cochlear implants: New perspectives (pp. 153–167). Basel, Switzerland: Karger Publishers.
      Google Scholar
    • Gfeller, K., Oleson, J., Knutson, J. F., Breheny, P., Driscoll, V., & Olszewski, C. (2008). Multivariate predictors of music perception and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 19(2), 120–134.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Grossberg, S., & Stone, G. (1986). Neural dynamics of word recognition and recall: Attentional priming, learning, and resonance.Psychological Review, 93(1), 46–74.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Herman, R., & Pisoni, D. B. (2000). Perception of “elliptical speech” by an adult hearing impaired listener with a cochlear implant: Some preliminary findings on coarse-coding in speech perception.Research on Spoken Language Processing, 24, 87–112.
      Google 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
    • Institute of Electrical and Electrionics Engineers. (1969). IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. New York, NY: Author.
      Google Scholar
    • Janse, E., & Newman, R. S. (2013). Identifying nonwords: Effects of lexical neighborhoods, phonotactic probability, and listener characteristics.Language and Speech, 56(4), 421–441.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Kalikow, D. N., Stevens, K. N., & Elliott, L. L. (1977). Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61(5), 1337–1351.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Knutson, J. F., Hinrichs, J. V., Tyler, R. S., Gantz, B. J., Schartz, H. A., & Woodworth, G. (1991). Psychological predictors of audiological outcomes of multichannel cochlear implants: Preliminary findings.Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 100(10), 817–822.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Koelewijn, T., Zekveld, A. A., Festen, J. M., Rönnberg, J., & Kramer, S. E. (2012). Processing load induced by informational masking is related to linguistic abilities.International Journal of Otolaryngology, 1, 1–11.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Loebach, J. L., & Pisoni, D. B. (2008). Perceptual learning of spectrally degraded speech and environmental sounds.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(2), 1126–1139.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model.Ear and Hearing, 19, 1–36.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Marslen-Wilson, W. (1993). Issues of process and representation in lexical access.In Cognitive models of speech processing: The second Sperlonga meeting (pp. 187–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
      Google Scholar
    • Mattingly, J. K., Castellanos, I., & Moberly, A. C. (2018). Nonverbal reasoning as a contributor to sentence recognition outcomes in adults with cochlear implants.Otology & Neurotology, 39(10), e956–e963.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception.Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1–86.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • McMurray, B., Farris-Trimble, A., & Rigler, H. (2017). Waiting for lexical access: Cochlear implants or severely degraded input lead listeners to process speech less incrementally.Cognition, 169, 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.013
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 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(4), 1046–1061.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Moberly, A. C., Houston, D. M., & Castellanos, I. (2016). Non-auditory neurocognitive skills contribute to speech recognition in adults with cochlear implants.Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 1(6), 154–162.
      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(5), 470–477.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition.Psychological Review, 76(2), 165–178.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Nagaraj, N. K. (2017). Working memory and speech comprehension in older adults with hearing impairment.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(10), 2949–2964.
      LinkGoogle 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(1), 29–63.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (2016). Prediction, Bayesian inference and feedback in speech recognition.Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 4–18.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Raven, J. C. (1938). Raven's Progressive Matrices. Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services.
      Google Scholar
    • Raven, J. C. (2000). The Raven's Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and time.Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1–48.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Reitan, R. M. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8(3), 271–276.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Rimoldi, H. J. (1948). A note on Raven's Progressive Matrices Test.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8(3–1), 347–352.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Rönnberg, J. (2003). Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: A framework and a model.International Journal of Audiology, 42, S68–S76.
      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.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition.Psychology Review, 103, 403–428.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Schvartz, K. C., Chatterjee, M., & Gordon-Salant, S. (2008). Recognition of spectrally degraded phonemes by younger, middle-aged, and older normal-hearing listeners.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124, 3972–3988.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Sommers, M. S., & Danielson, S. M. (1999). Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: The interaction of lexical competition and semantic context.Psychology and Aging, 14(3), 458–472.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Sörqvist, P., & Rönnberg, J. (2012). Episodic long-term memory of spoken discourse masked by speech: What is the role for working memory capacity?.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55(1), 210–218.
      LinkGoogle Scholar
    • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
      Google Scholar
    • Tuennerhoff, J., & Noppeney, U. (2016). When sentences live up to your expectations.NeuroImage, 124, 641–653.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Verhaeghen, P., & Salthouse, T. A. (1997). Meta-analyses of age–cognition relations in adulthood: Estimates of linear and nonlinear age effects and structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 122(3), 231.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Wechsler, D. (1981). WAIS-R: Manual. New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation.
      Google Scholar
    • Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition, Integrated (WISC-IV Integrated). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
      Google Scholar
    • Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test–Fourth Edition (WRAT4). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
      Google Scholar
    • Wingfield, A. (1996). Cognitive factors in auditory performance: Context, speed of processing, and constraints of memory.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 7, 175–182.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Zekveld, A. A., Rudner, M., Johnsrude, I. S., Heslenfeld, D. J., & Rönnberg, J. (2012). Behavioral and fMRI evidence that cognitive ability modulates the effect of semantic context on speech intelligibility.Brain and Language, 122(2), 103–113.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Zeng, F. G. (2004). Trends in cochlear implants.Trends in Amplification, 8, 1–34.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

    Additional Resources