Perception and confusion of speech sounds by adults with a cochlear implant

Consonant and vowel confusions in well-performing adult cochlear implant users, measured with a nonsense syllable repetition test

OBJECTIVE

The study's objective was to identify consonant and vowel confusions in cochlear implant (CI) users, using a nonsense syllable repetition test.

DESIGN

In this cross-sectional study, participants repeated recorded mono- and bisyllabic nonsense words and real-word monosyllables in an open-set design.

STUDY SAMPLE

Twenty-eight Norwegian-speaking, well-performing adult CI users (13 unilateral and 15 bilateral), using implants from Cochlear, Med-El and Advanced Bionics, and a reference group of 20 listeners with normal hearing participated.

RESULTS

For the CI users, consonants were confused more often than vowels (58% versus 71% correct). Voiced consonants were confused more often than unvoiced (54% versus 64% correct). Voiced stops were often repeated as unvoiced, whereas unvoiced stops were never repeated as voiced. The nasals were repeated correctly in one third of the cases and confused with other nasals in one third of the cases. The real-word monosyllable score was significantly higher than the nonsense syllable score (76% versus 63% correct).

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed a general devoicing bias for the stops and a high confusion rate of nasals with other nasals, which suggests that the low-frequency coding in CIs is insufficient. Furthermore, the nonsense syllable test exposed more perception errors than the real word test.

Consonant and Vowel Identification in Cochlear Implant Users Measured by Nonsense Words: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish a baseline of the vowel and consonant identification scores in prelingually and postlingually deaf users of multichannel cochlear implants (CIs) tested with consonant-vowel-consonant and vowel-consonant-vowel nonsense syllables.

METHOD

Six electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles reporting consonant and vowel identification scores in CI users measured by nonsense words. Relevant studies were independently assessed and screened by 2 reviewers. Consonant and vowel identification scores were presented in forest plots and compared between studies in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles with 50 studies, including 647 participants, thereof 581 postlingually deaf and 66 prelingually deaf, met the inclusion criteria of this study. The mean performance on vowel identification tasks for the postlingually deaf CI users was 76.8% (N = 5), which was higher than the mean performance for the prelingually deaf CI users (67.7%; N = 1). The mean performance on consonant identification tasks for the postlingually deaf CI users was higher (58.4%; N = 44) than for the prelingually deaf CI users (46.7%; N = 6). The most common consonant confusions were found between those with same manner of articulation (/k/ as /t/, /m/ as /n/, and /p/ as /t/).

CONCLUSIONS

The mean performance on consonant identification tasks for the prelingually and postlingually deaf CI users was found. There were no statistically significant differences between the scores for prelingually and postlingually deaf CI users. The consonants that were incorrectly identified were typically confused with other consonants with the same acoustic properties, namely, voicing, duration, nasality, and silent gaps. A univariate metaregression model, although not statistically significant, indicated that duration of implant use in postlingually deaf adults predict a substantial portion of their consonant identification ability. As there is no ceiling effect, a nonsense syllable identification test may be a useful addition to the standard test battery in audiology clinics when assessing the speech perception of CI users.

[Phoneme discrimination training with experienced cochlear implant listeners]

BACKGROUND

Computer-based auditory training programmes seem to be a useful tool in the process of auditory rehabilitation after cochlear implantation (CI). Currently, little is known about the learning mechanism and efficiency of such programs. The aim of the study was to evaluate a specific auditory training programme for phoneme discrimination in experienced CI listeners.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 15 CI adult listeners with more than 2 years' CI experience participated in the auditory training. Over a period of 3 weeks they were instructed to train their phoneme discrimination via computer twice a week. Training material consisted of special syllables for consonants (vCv) and vowels (cVc) discrimination.

RESULTS

The discrimination abilities for consonants and vowels improved significantly over the training period for training group participants, whereas the changes for the consonants were higher. In addition, the improvement for voiced and unvoiced consonants was significant.

CONCLUSION

Computerised auditory training with phonemes improves CI listeners' discrimination abilities for consonants and vowels.

Vowel confusion patterns in adults during initial 4 years of implant use

This study investigated adult cochlear implant users' (n = 39) vowel recognition and confusions by an open-set syllable test during 4 years of implant use, in a prospective repeated-measures design. Subjects' responses were coded for phoneme errors and estimated by the generalized mixed model. Improvement in overall vowel recognition was highest during the first 6 months, showing statistically significant change until 4 years, especially for the mediocre performers. The best performers improved statistically significantly until 18 months. The poorest performers improved until 12 months and exhibited more vowel confusions. No differences were found in overall vowel recognition between Nucleus24M/24R and Med-ElC40+ device users (matched comparison), but certain vowels showed statistically significant differences. Vowel confusions between adjacent vowels were evident, probably due to the implant users' inability to discriminate formant frequencies. Vowel confusions were also dominated by vowels whose average F1 and/or F2 frequencies were higher than the target vowel, indicating a basalward shift in the confusions.