ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2018
Memory Span for Spoken Digits in Adults With Cochlear Implants or Typical Hearing: Effects of Age and Identification Ability.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Communication Experiences and Challenges in Adult Cochlear Implant Users: Associations with Age and Occupation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Reduced digit spans and ear dominance using dichotic digits in bimodal cochlear-implant users.JASA express letters · 2024Article
- Dichotic listening performance and effort as a function of spectral resolution and interaural symmetry.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021Article
- Dichotic listening performance with cochlear-implant simulations of ear asymmetry is consistent with difficulty ignoring clearer speech.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021Article
- Age-Related Changes in Temporal Resolution Revisited: Electrophysiological and Behavioral Findings From Cochlear Implant Users.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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Short-term and working memory vary across individuals and life span. Studies of how cochlear implant (CI) users remember spoken words often do not fully disentangle perceptual influences from memory assessment because stimulus identification is rarely checked; instead, correct perception is assumed by using simple or practiced stimuli. Here, we examine whether the accuracy and speed of auditory digit identification are associated with short-term and working memory in adults with CIs as a function of age. Do perceptual errors and longer processing times depress memory span scores for such listeners? An intensive digit span assessment using manual responses is compared with traditional digit span, which uses only a few speech-based trials. We also assess how vocoder-based degradation impacts identification and digit span in older versus younger listeners with normal hearing (NH). Method: We measured forward and backward recall for spoken digits in 25 adults with CIs (M = 57 years; range = 20-82 years), 10 older adults with NH (> 55 years; M = 64 years), and 11 younger adults with NH (< 22 years). Listeners identified recorded digits one at a time by clicking numerals on a computer screen and then were cued to recall the list. In a comparison condition, listeners only identified each item. Listeners with NH also completed the tasks under four conditions of signal degradation implemented using a channel vocoder: four or eight channels crossed with 0- or 6-mm simulated tonotopic shift, administered in randomized blocks. A mixed design was used, with the effects of degradation examined within subject, across different listener groups, and as a function of age. Results: CI users were near perfect at identifying auditory digits (> 99% correct, on average), both in isolation and while experiencing a memory load. Perceptual accuracy, thus, did not affect digit span in these listeners. Identification times, however, were significantly slower under memory load. Age was only weakly related to span in CI listeners. Instead, individual differences in span in the CI group were better predicted by simple no-load identification times. Among listeners with NH, spans for vocoded digits that were not frequency shifted did not differ from spans for unprocessed stimuli. Frequency-shifted vocoded digits, however, yielded lower scores that could mostly, but not entirely, be accounted for by crediting for perceptual errors. Frequency-shifted vocoded digits were particularly challenging for older adult listeners with NH to identify. Traditional digit span correlated more strongly with our primary span measure for listeners with CIs than for listeners with NH. Conclusions: Digit span can be studied independently of perception in many adult CI users. For both CI listeners and listeners with NH, stimulus degradation does not appear to significantly affect memory span, unless an effect on simple identification is also present. Auditory degradation that may slow, but which does not ultimately prevent identification, appears to have negligible impact on short-term and working memory spans.
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.