Correlation between Auditory Spectral Resolution and Speech Perception in Children with Cochlear Implants

Zahra Jeddi, Younes Lotfi, Abdollah Moossavi, Enayatollah Bakhshi, Seyed Basir Hashemi, Zahra Jeddi, Younes Lotfi, Abdollah Moossavi, Enayatollah Bakhshi, Seyed Basir Hashemi

Abstract

Background: Variability in speech performance is a major concern for children with cochlear implants (CIs). Spectral resolution is an important acoustic component in speech perception. Considerable variability and limitations of spectral resolution in children with CIs may lead to individual differences in speech performance. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between auditory spectral resolution and speech perception in pediatric CI users.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in Shiraz, Iran, in 2017. The frequency discrimination threshold (FDT) and the spectral-temporal modulated ripple discrimination threshold (SMRT) were measured for 75 pre-lingual hearing-impaired children with CIs (age=8-12 y). Word recognition and sentence perception tests were completed to assess speech perception. The Pearson correlation analysis and multiple linear regression analysis were used to determine the correlation between the variables and to determine the predictive variables of speech perception, respectively.

Results: There was a significant correlation between the SMRT and word recognition (r=0.573 and P<0.001). The FDT was significantly correlated with word recognition (r=0.487 and P<0.001). Sentence perception had a significant correlation with the SMRT and the FDT. There was a significant correlation between chronological age and age at implantation with SMRT but not the FDT.

Conclusion: Auditory spectral resolution correlated well with speech perception among our children with CIs. Spectral resolution ability accounted for approximately 40% of the variance in speech perception among the children with CIs.

Keywords: Auditory threshold; Cochlear implants; Speech perception; Child.

Copyright: © Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences.

Figures

Figure1
Figure1
The figure illustrates the word recognition score transformed into rationalized arcsine units as a function of the frequency discrimination threshold (a) and the spectral-temporal modulated ripple discrimination threshold (b)
Figure2
Figure2
The figure depicts the sentence perception score transformed into rationalized arcsine units as a function of the frequency discrimination threshold (a) and the spectral-temporal modulated ripple discrimination threshold (b). The regression lines are quadratic fits.

References

    1. Scheperle RA, Abbas PJ. Relationships Among Peripheral and Central Electrophysiological Measures of Spatial and Spectral Selectivity and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users. Ear Hear. 2015;36:441–53. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000144. [ ]
    1. Davies-Venn E, Nelson P, Souza P. Comparing auditory filter bandwidths, spectral ripple modulation detection, spectral ripple discrimination, and speech recognition: Normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015;138:492–503. doi: 10.1121/1.4922700. [ ]
    1. Turgeon C, Champoux F, Lepore F, Ellemberg D. Deficits in auditory frequency discrimination and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int. 2015;16:88–94. doi: 10.1179/1754762814Y.0000000091.
    1. Fu QJ, Nogaki G. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2005;6:19–27. doi: 10.1007/s10162-004-5024-3. [ ]
    1. Supin A, Popov VV, Milekhina ON, Tarakanov MB. Frequency resolving power measured by rippled noise. Hear Res. 1994;78:31–40.
    1. Won JH, Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT. Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;8:384–92. doi: 10.1007/s10162-007-0085-8. [ ]
    1. Goldsworthy RL. Correlations Between Pitch and Phoneme Perception in Cochlear Implant Users and Their Normal Hearing Peers. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2015;16:797–809. doi: 10.1007/s10162-015-0541-9. [ ]
    1. Peter V, Wong K, Narne VK, Sharma M, Purdy SC, McMahon C. Assessing spectral and temporal processing in children and adults using temporal modulation transfer function (TMTF), Iterated Ripple Noise (IRN) perception, and spectral ripple discrimination (SRD) J Am Acad Audiol. 2014;25:210–8. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.25.2.9.
    1. Halliday LF, Bishop DV. Frequency discrimination and literacy skills in children with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005;48:1187–203. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/083).
    1. Henry BA, Turner CW. The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003;113:2861–73. doi: 10.1121/1.1561900.
    1. Anderson ES, Oxenham AJ, Nelson PB, Nelson DA. Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;132:3925–34. doi: 10.1121/1.4763999. [ ]
    1. Anderson ES, Nelson DA, Kreft H, Nelson PB, Oxenham AJ. Comparing spatial tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011;130:364–75. doi: 10.1121/1.3589255. [ ]
    1. Sagi E, Kaiser AR, Meyer TA, Svirsky MA. The effect of temporal gap identification on speech perception by users of cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52:385–95. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0219). [ ]
    1. Wei C, Cao K, Jin X, Chen X, Zeng FG. Psychophysical performance and Mandarin tone recognition in noise by cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 2007;28:62S–5S. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318031512c. [ ]
    1. Goldsworthy RL, Delhorne LA, Braida LD, Reed CM. Psychoacoustic and phoneme identification measures in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners. Trends Amplif. 2013;17:27–44. doi: 10.1177/1084713813477244. [ ]
    1. Moore DR, Ferguson MA, Halliday LF, Riley A. Frequency discrimination in children: perception, learning and attention. Hear Res. 2008;238:147–54. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2007.11.013.
    1. Aronoff JM, Landsberger DM. The development of a modified spectral ripple test. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;134:EL217–22. doi: 10.1121/1.4813802. [ ]
    1. Lotfi Y, Salim S, Mehrkian S, Ahmadi T, Biglarian A. The Persian version of words-in-noise test for young population: development and validation. Auditory and Vestibular Research. 2016;25:194–200.
    1. Moossavi A, Mehrkian S, Karami F, Biglarian A, Bakhtiari BM. Developing of Persian version of the BKB sentences and content validity assessment. Auditory and Vestibular Research. 2017;26:27–33.
    1. Jung KH, Won JH, Drennan WR, Jameyson E, Miyasaki G, Norton SJ, et al. Psychoacoustic performance and music and speech perception in prelingually deafened children with cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol. 2012;17:189–97. doi: 10.1159/000336407. [ ]
    1. Landsberger DM, Padilla M, Martinez AS, Eisenberg LS. Spectral-Temporal Modulated Ripple Discrimination by Children With Cochlear Implants. Ear Hear. 2018;39:60–8. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000463.
    1. Eisenberg LS, Shannon RV, Martinez AS, Wygonski J, Boothroyd A. Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;107:2704–10. doi: 10.1121/1.428656.
    1. Conway CM, Deocampo JA, Walk AM, Anaya EM, Pisoni DB. Deaf children with cochlear implants do not appear to use sentence context to help recognize spoken words. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014;57:2174–90. doi: 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0236. [ ]
    1. Kopelovich JC, Eisen MD, Franck KH. Frequency and electrode discrimination in children with cochlear implants. Hear Res. 2010;268:105–13. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.05.006. [ ]
    1. Santarelli R, Magnavita V, De Filippi R, Ventura L, Genovese E, Arslan E. Comparison of speech perception performance between Sprint/Esprit 3G and Freedom processors in children implanted with nucleus cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30:304–12. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181967a19.
    1. Dorman MF, Smith LM, Smith M, Parkin JL. Frequency discrimination and speech recognition by patients who use the Ineraid and continuous interleaved sampling cochlear-implant signal processors. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996;99:1174–84. doi: 10.1121/1.414600.
    1. Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell TD, Sharma A. Neurophysiologic bases of speech discrimination. Ear Hear. 1995;16:19–37. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199502000-00003.
    1. Litvak LM, Spahr AJ, Saoji AA, Fridman GY. Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;122:982–91. doi: 10.1121/1.2749413.
    1. Faulkner KF. Understanding Frequency Encoding and Perception in Adult Users of Cochlear Implants: Spectral ripple thresholds can be improved with training in CI users: but what are we training? Washington: University of Washington; 2012.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren