These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Within- and across-frequency temporal processing and speech perception in cochlear implant users.
    Author: Blankenship CM, Meinzen-Derr J, Zhang F.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2022; 17(10):e0275772. PubMed ID: 36227872.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Cochlear implant (CI) recipient's speech perception performance is highly variable and is influenced by temporal processing abilities. Temporal processing is commonly assessed using a behavioral task that requires the participant to detect a silent gap with the pre- and post-gap stimuli of the same frequency (within-frequency gap detection) or of different frequencies (across-frequency gap detection). The purpose of the study was to evaluate behavioral and electrophysiological measures of within- and across-frequency temporal processing and their correlations with speech perception performance in CI users. DESIGN: Participants included 11 post-lingually deafened adult CI users (n = 15 ears; Mean Age = 50.2 yrs) and 11 age- and gender-matched normal hearing (NH) individuals (n = 15 ears; Mean Age = 49.0 yrs). Speech perception was assessed with Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant Word Recognition (CNC), Arizona Biomedical Sentence Recognition (AzBio), and Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test (BKB-SIN) tests. Within- and across-frequency behavioral gap detection thresholds (referred to as the GDTwithin and GDTacross) were measured using an adaptive, two-alternative, forced-choice procedure. Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) were elicited using within- and across-frequency gap stimuli under four gap duration conditions (no gap, GDT, sub-threshold GDT, and supra-threshold GDT). Correlations among speech perception, GDTs, and CAEPs were examined. RESULTS: CI users had poorer speech perception scores compared to NH listeners (p < 0.05), but the GDTs were not different between groups (p > 0.05). Compared to NH peers, CI users showed increased N1 latency in the CAEPs evoked by the across-frequency gap stimuli (p < 0.05). No group difference was observed for the CAEPs evoked by the within-frequency gap (p > 0.05). Three CI ears showing the longest GDTwithin also showed the poorest performance in speech in noise. The within-frequency CAEP increased in amplitude with the increase of gap duration; while the across-frequency CAEP displayed a similar amplitude for all gap durations. There was a significant correlation between speech scores and within-frequency CAEP measures for the supra-threshold GDT condition, with CI users with poorer speech performance having a smaller N1-P2 amplitude and longer N1 latency. No correlations were found among GDTacross, speech perception, and across-frequency CAEP measures. CONCLUSIONS: Within- and across-frequency gap detection may involve different neural mechanisms. The within-frequency gap detection task can help identify CI users with poor speech performance for rehabilitation. The within-frequency CAEP is a better predictor for speech perception performance than the across-frequency CAEP.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]