ArticleEar and hearing
High-Variability Sentence Recognition in Long-Term Cochlear Implant Users: Associations With Rapid Phonological Coding and Executive Functioning.
Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual Cortical Processing in Children with Early Bilateral Cochlear Implants: A VEP Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Association of domain-general speed of information processing with spoken language outcomes in prelingually-deaf children with cochlear implants.Hearing research · 2024Article
- Cognitive Functions and Subjective Hearing in Cochlear Implant Users.Journal of audiology & otology · 2024Article
- Extraordinary Speech and Language Outcomes After Auditory Brainstem Implantation: Guidance From a Case Study.American journal of audiology · 2023Article
- Streamlining experiment design in cognitive hearing science using OpenSesame.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Verbal Fluency in Prelingually Deaf, Early Implanted Children and Adolescents With Cochlear Implants.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Development of visual sustained selective attention and response inhibition in deaf children.Memory & cognition · 2023Article
- Exploring neurocognitive factors and brain activation in adult cochlear implant recipients associated with speech perception outcomes-A scoping review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Exceptional Speech Recognition Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation: Lessons From Two Case Studies.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- Disparate Oral and Written Language Abilities in Adolescents With Cochlear Implants: Evidence From Narrative Samples.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2022Article
- Poor Performer: A Distinct Entity in Cochlear Implant Users?Audiology & neuro-otology · 2022Article
- Verbal Working Memory Error Patterns and Speech-Language Outcomes in Youth With Cochlear Implants.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
- Differential At-Risk Pediatric Outcomes of Parental Sensitivity Based on Hearing Status.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
- The contribution of spectral processing to the acquisition of phonological sensitivity by adolescent cochlear implant users and normal-hearing controls.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021Article
- Recognizing spoken words in semantically-anomalous sentences: Effects of executive control in early-implanted deaf children with cochlear implants.Cochlear implants international · 2021Article
- Functional hearing quality in prelingually deaf school-age children and adolescents with cochlear implants.International journal of audiology · 2021Article
- Serial Recall Predicts Vocoded Sentence Recognition Across Spectral Resolutions.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2020Article
- Assessing Higher Order Language Processing in Long-Term Cochlear Implant Users.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2019Article
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
objectivesThe objective of the present study was to determine whether long-term cochlear implant (CI) users would show greater variability in rapid phonological coding skills and greater reliance on slow-effortful compensatory executive functioning (EF) skills than normal-hearing (NH) peers on perceptually challenging high-variability sentence recognition tasks. We tested the following three hypotheses: First, CI users would show lower scores on sentence recognition tests involving high speaker and dialect variability than NH controls, even after adjusting for poorer sentence recognition performance by CI users on a conventional low-variability sentence recognition test. Second, variability in fast-automatic rapid phonological coding skills would be more strongly associated with performance on high-variability sentence recognition tasks for CI users than NH peers. Third, compensatory EF strategies would be more strongly associated with performance on high-variability sentence recognition tasks for CI users than NH peers.
designTwo groups of children, adolescents, and young adults aged 9 to 29 years participated in this cross-sectional study: 49 long-term CI users (≥7 years) and 56 NH controls. All participants were tested on measures of rapid phonological coding (Children's Test of Nonword Repetition), conventional sentence recognition (Harvard Sentence Recognition Test), and two novel high-variability sentence recognition tests that varied the indexical attributes of speech (Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set test and Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set test-Foreign Accented English test). Measures of EF included verbal working memory (WM), spatial WM, controlled cognitive fluency, and inhibition concentration.
resultsCI users scored lower than NH peers on both tests of high-variability sentence recognition even after conventional sentence recognition skills were statistically controlled. Correlations between rapid phonological coding and high-variability sentence recognition scores were stronger for the CI sample than for the NH sample even after basic sentence perception skills were statistically controlled. Scatterplots revealed different ranges and slopes for the relationship between rapid phonological coding skills and high-variability sentence recognition performance in CI users and NH peers. Although no statistically significant correlations between EF strategies and sentence recognition were found in the CI or NH sample after use of a conservative Bonferroni-type correction, medium to high effect sizes for correlations between verbal WM and sentence recognition in the CI sample suggest that further investigation of this relationship is needed.
conclusionsThese findings provide converging support for neurocognitive models that propose two channels for speech-language processing: a fast-automatic channel that predominates whenever possible and a compensatory slow-effortful processing channel that is activated during perceptually-challenging speech processing tasks that are not fully managed by the fast-automatic channel (ease of language understanding, framework for understanding effortful listening, and auditory neurocognitive model). CI users showed significantly poorer performance on measures of high-variability sentence recognition than NH peers, even after simple sentence recognition was controlled. Nonword repetition scores showed almost no overlap between CI and NH samples, and correlations between nonword repetition scores and high-variability sentence recognition were consistent with greater reliance on engagement of fast-automatic phonological coding for high-variability sentence recognition in the CI sample than in the NH sample. Further investigation of the verbal WM-sentence recognition relationship in CI users is recommended. Assessment of fast-automatic phonological processing and slow-effortful EF skills may provide a better understanding of speech perception outcomes in CI users in the clinical setting.
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.