ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Audiology
Segmental and Suprasegmental Perception in Children Using Hearing Aids.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reading abilities of adolescents with cochlear implants: the role of early speech perception in a longitudinal study.Cochlear implants international · 2025Article
- Effects of Segmental and Suprasegmental Speech Perception on Reading in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022Article
- Spectral Resolution Development in Children With Normal Hearing and With Cochlear Implants: A Review of Behavioral Studies.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022Review
- Spectral Modulation Detection Performance and Speech Perception in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.American journal of audiology · 2021Article
- Effects of Early Acoustic Hearing on Speech Perception and Language for Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2019Article
- American Cochlear Implant Alliance Task Force Guidelines for Determining Cochlear Implant Candidacy in Children.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSuprasegmental perception (perception of stress, intonation, "how something is said" and "who says it") and segmental speech perception (perception of individual phonemes or perception of "what is said") are perceptual abilities that provide the foundation for the development of spoken language and effective communication. While there are numerous studies examining segmental perception in children with hearing aids (HAs), there are far fewer studies examining suprasegmental perception, especially for children with greater degrees of residual hearing. Examining the relation between acoustic hearing thresholds, and both segmental and suprasegmental perception for children with HAs, may ultimately enable better device recommendations (bilateral HAs, bimodal devices [one CI and one HA in opposite ears], bilateral CIs) for a particular degree of residual hearing. Examining both types of speech perception is important because segmental and suprasegmental cues are affected differentially by the type of hearing device(s) used (i.e., cochlear implant [CI] and/or HA). Additionally, suprathreshold measures, such as frequency resolution ability, may partially predict benefit from amplification and may assist audiologists in making hearing device recommendations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between audibility (via hearing thresholds and speech intelligibility indices), and segmental and suprasegmental speech perception for children with HAs. A secondary goal is to explore the relationships among frequency resolution ability (via spectral modulation detection [SMD] measures), segmental and suprasegmental speech perception, and receptive language in these same children. RESEARCH
designA prospective cross-sectional design. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-three children, ages 4 yr 11 mo to 11 yr 11 mo, participated in the study. Participants were recruited from pediatric clinic populations, oral schools for the deaf, and mainstream schools. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Audiological history and hearing device information were collected from participants and their families. Segmental and suprasegmental speech perception, SMD, and receptive vocabulary skills were assessed. Correlations were calculated to examine the significance (p < 0.05) of relations between audibility and outcome measures.
resultsMeasures of audibility and segmental speech perception are not significantly correlated, while low-frequency pure-tone average (unaided) is significantly correlated with suprasegmental speech perception. SMD is significantly correlated with all measures (measures of audibility, segmental and suprasegmental perception and vocabulary). Lastly, although age is not significantly correlated with measures of audibility, it is significantly correlated with all other outcome measures.
conclusionsThe absence of a significant correlation between audibility and segmental speech perception might be attributed to overall audibility being maximized through well-fit HAs. The significant correlation between low-frequency unaided audibility and suprasegmental measures is likely due to the strong, predominantly low-frequency nature of suprasegmental acoustic properties. Frequency resolution ability, via SMD performance, is significantly correlated with all outcomes and requires further investigation; its significant correlation with vocabulary suggests that linguistic ability may be partially related to frequency resolution ability. Last, all of the outcome measures are significantly correlated with age, suggestive of developmental effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.