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.

[1]  Arne K Rødvik,et al.  Consonant and Vowel Confusions in Well-Performing Children and Adolescents With Cochlear Implants, Measured by a Nonsense Syllable Repetition Test , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[2]  Meredith T Caldwell,et al.  Assessment and improvement of sound quality in cochlear implant users , 2017, Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology.

[3]  M. Hoen,et al.  A Cochlear Implant Performance Prognostic Test Based on Electrical Field Interactions Evaluated by eABR (Electrical Auditory Brainstem Responses) , 2016, PloS one.

[4]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: Final outcomes , 2016, The Laryngoscope.

[5]  U. Hoppe,et al.  Computer-based auditory phoneme discrimination training improves speech recognition in noise in experienced adult cochlear implant listeners , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[6]  T. Välimaa,et al.  Vowel confusion patterns in adults during initial 4 years of implant use , 2011, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.

[7]  C. Roup,et al.  Dichotic speech recognition using CVC word and nonsense CVC syllable stimuli. , 2011, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[8]  Anders Löfqvist,et al.  Vowel spaces in Swedish adolescents with cochlear implants. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Jonathan Harrington,et al.  An acoustic analysis of the vowel space in young and old cochlear-implant speakers , 2010, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.

[10]  R. Mühler,et al.  Logatome Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users: Subjective Tests Compared to the Mismatch Negativity , 2010, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[11]  Arne K Rødvik Perception and Confusion of Speech Sounds by Adults with a Cochlear Implant , 2008, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.

[12]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Companding to improve cochlear-implant speech recognition in speech-shaped noise. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Heather A. Kreft,et al.  Effects of Vowel Context on the Recognition of Initial and Medial Consonants by Cochlear Implant Users , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Colleen Psarros,et al.  Speech Recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS Speech Coding Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[15]  T. Välimaa,et al.  Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: vowels. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[16]  J Vanden Berghe,et al.  Speech Recognition in Noise for Cochlear Implantees with a Two-Microphone Monaural Adaptive Noise Reduction System , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[17]  T. Välimaa,et al.  The effect of a multichannel cochlear implant on phoneme perception , 2001, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[18]  M Pelizzone,et al.  Within-patient longitudinal speech reception measures with continuous interleaved sampling processors for ineraid implanted subjects. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[19]  A van Wieringen,et al.  Natural vowel and consonant recognition by Laura cochlear implantees. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[20]  M. Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  J. Tsuji,et al.  Reliability of the promontory stimulation test for the preoperative evaluation of cochlear implants: a comparison with the round window stimulation test. , 1994, Auris, nasus, larynx.

[22]  R S Tyler,et al.  Consonant recognition by some of the better cochlear-implant patients. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  R. Hurtig,et al.  The use of static and dynamic vowel cues by multichannel cochlear implant users. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  R D Battmer,et al.  Comparative speech recognition results in eight subjects using two different coding strategies with the Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implant. , 1991, British journal of audiology.

[25]  S. Blumstein,et al.  Perceptual integration of the murmur and formant transitions for place of articulation in nasal consonants. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.