An Examination of Sources of Variability Across the Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant Test in Cochlear Implant Listeners

The 10 consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word lists are considered the gold standard in the testing of cochlear implant (CI) users. However, variance in scores across lists could degrade the sensitivity and reliability of them to identify deficits in speech perception. This study examined the relationship between variability in performance among lists and the lexical characteristics of the words. Data are from 28 adult CI users. Each subject was tested on all 10 CNC word lists. Data were analyzed in terms of lexical characteristics, lexical frequency, neighborhood density, bi-, and tri-phonemic probabilities. To determine whether individual performance variability across lists can be reduced, the standard set of 10 phonetically balanced 50-word lists was redistributed into a new set of lists using two sampling strategies: (a) balancing with respect to word lexical frequency or (b) selecting words with equal probability. The mean performance on the CNC lists varied from 53.1% to 62.4% correct. The average difference between the highest and lowest scores within individuals across the lists was 20.9% (from 12% to 28%). Lexical frequency and bi-phonemic probabilities were correlated with word recognition performance. The range of scores was not significantly reduced for all individuals when responses were simulated with 1,000 sets of redistributed lists, using both types of sampling methods. These results indicate that resampling of words does not affect the test–retest reliability and diagnostic value of the CNC word test.

[1]  P. Luce,et al.  Similarity neighbourhoods of words in young children's lexicons , 1990, Journal of Child Language.

[2]  G. Altmann,et al.  Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives - Workshop Overview , 1989, AI Mag..

[3]  M. Skinner,et al.  Evaluation of equivalency in two recordings of monosyllabic words. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  P. Blamey,et al.  Separating contributions of hearing, lexical knowledge, and speech production to speech-perception scores in children with hearing impairments. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[5]  E. Thorndike The Teacher's Word Book , 2007 .

[6]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. , 1962, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[7]  J. P. Egan Articulation testing methods , 1948, The Laryngoscope.

[8]  James P. Egan,et al.  Remarks on Rare PB Words , 1957 .

[9]  W. Luxford,et al.  Minimum Speech Test Battery for Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Patients , 2001, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[10]  F N Martin,et al.  The question of phonetic balance in word recognition testing. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[11]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Lexical Effects on Spoken Word Recognition by Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[12]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Linguistic Considerations in the Study of Speech Intelligibility , 1959 .

[13]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Similarity neighborhoods of spoken words , 1991 .

[14]  Edward L. Thorndike,et al.  The Teacher's Word Book of 30, 000 Words , 2018 .

[15]  P. Luce,et al.  Similarity neighborhoods of spoken two-syllable words: retroactive effects on multiple activation. , 1990, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

[16]  R. McArdle,et al.  A comparison of recognition performances in speech-spectrum noise by listeners with normal hearing on PB-50, CID W-22, NU-6, W-1 spondaic words, and monosyllabic digits spoken by the same speaker. , 2008, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[17]  B. French,et al.  Lexical Effects on Spoken-Word Recognition in Children with Normal Hearing , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[18]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[19]  M. Sommers The structural organization of the mental lexicon and its contribution to age-related declines in spoken-word recognition. , 1995, Psychology and aging.

[20]  L. Eisenberg,et al.  Recognition of Lexically Controlled Words and Sentences by Children with Normal Hearing and Children with Cochlear Implants , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[21]  P. Luce,et al.  Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition , 1999 .

[22]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Effects of stimulus variability on speech perception in listeners with hearing impairment. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[23]  R. Miyamoto,et al.  Speech Perception in Children with Cochlear Implants: Effects of Lexical Difficulty, Talker Variability, and Word Length , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.