Background There is growing consensus that hearing loss and consequent amplification likely interact with cognitive systems. A phenomenon often examined in regards to these potential interactions is working memory, modeled as consisting of one component responsible for storage of information and another component responsible for processing of that information. Signal degradation associated with cochlear implants should selectively inhibit storage without affecting processing. This study examined two hypotheses: (1) A single task can be used to measure storage and processing in working memory, with recall accuracy indexing storage and rate of recall indexing processing; (2) Storage is negatively impacted for children with CIs, but not processing. Method Two experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 included adults and children, 8 and 6 years of age, with NH. Procedures tested the prediction that accuracy of recall could index storage and rate of recall could index processing. Both measures were obtained during a serial-recall task using word lists designed to manipulate storage and processing demands independently: non-rhyming nouns were the standard condition; rhyming nouns were predicted to diminish storage capacity; and non-rhyming adjectives were predicted to increase processing load. Experiment 2 included 98 8-year-olds, 48 with NH and 50 with CIs, in the same serial-recall task using the non-rhyming and rhyming nouns. Results Experiment 1 showed that recall accuracy was poorest for the rhyming nouns and rate of recall was slowest for the non-rhyming adjectives, demonstrating that storage and processing can be indexed separately within a single task. In Experiment 2, children with CIs showed less accurate recall of serial order than children with NH, but rate of recall did not differ. Recall accuracy and rate of recall were not correlated in either experiment, reflecting independence of these mechanisms. Conclusions It is possible to measure the operations of storage and processing mechanisms in working memory in a single task, and only storage is impaired for children with CIs. These findings suggest that research and clinical efforts should focus on enhancing the saliency of representation for children with CIs. Direct instruction of syntax and semantics could facilitate storage in real-world working memory tasks.

Purpose Cochlear implants (CIs) can facilitate the acquisition of spoken language for deaf children, but challenges remain. Language skills dependent upon phonological sensitivity are most at risk for these children, so having an effective way to diagnose problems at this level would be of value for school speech-language pathologists. The goal of this study was to assess whether a nonword repetition (NWR) task could serve that purpose. Method 104 second graders participated: 49 with NH and 55 with CIs. In addition to NWR, children were tested on ten measures involving phonological awareness/processing, serial recall of words, vocabulary, reading, and grammar. Results Children with CIs performed more poorly than children with NH on NWR, and sensitivity to phonological structure alone explained that performance for children in both groups. For children with CIs, two audiological factors positively influenced outcomes on NWR: being identified with hearing loss at younger ages and having experience wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear at the time of receiving a first CI. NWR scores were better able to rule out language deficits than rule in such deficits. Conclusions Well-designed NWR tasks could have clinical utility in assessments of language acquisition for school-age children with CIs.

Purpose Several acoustic cues specify any single phonemic contrast. Nonetheless, adult, native speakers of a language share weighting strategies, showing preferential attention to some properties over others. Cochlear implant (CI) signal processing disrupts the salience of some cues: in general, amplitude structure remains readily available, but spectral structure less so. This study asked how well speech recognition is supported if CI users shift attention to salient cues not weighted strongly by native speakers. Method 20 adults with CIs participated. The /bɑ/-/wɑ/ contrast was used because spectral and amplitude structure varies in correlated fashion for this contrast. Normal-hearing adults weight the spectral cue strongly, but the amplitude cue negligibly. Three measurements were made: labeling decisions, spectral and amplitude discrimination, and word recognition. Results Outcomes varied across listeners: some weighted the spectral cue strongly, some weighted the amplitude cue, and some weighted neither. Spectral discrimination predicted spectral weighting. Spectral weighting explained the most variance in word recognition. Age of onset of hearing loss predicted spectral weighting, but not unique variance in word recognition. Conclusions The weighting strategies of listeners with normal hearing likely support speech recognition best, so efforts in implant design, fitting, and training should focus on developing those strategies.

Objective: This study examined speech recognition in noise for children with hearing loss, compared it to recognition for children with normal hearing, and examined mechanisms that might explain variance in children’s abilities to recognize speech in noise. Design: Word recognition was measured in two levels of noise, both when the speech and noise were co-located in front and when the noise came separately from one side. Four mechanisms were examined as factors possibly explaining variance: vocabulary knowledge, sensitivity to phonological structure, binaural summation, and head shadow. Study sample: Participants were 113 eight-year-old children. Forty-eight had normal hearing (NH) and 65 had hearing loss: 18 with hearing aids (HAs), 19 with one cochlear implant (CI), and 28 with two CIs. Results: Phonological sensitivity explained a significant amount of between-groups variance in speech-in-noise recognition. Little evidence of binaural summation was found. Head shadow was similar in magnitude for children with NH and with CIs, regardless of whether they wore one or two CIs. Children with HAs showed reduced head shadow effects. Conclusion: These outcomes suggest that in order to improve speech-in-noise recognition for children with hearing loss, intervention needs to be comprehensive, focusing on both language abilities and auditory mechanisms.

Purpose Verbal working memory in children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing was examined. Participants Ninety-three fourth graders (47 with normal hearing, 46 with cochlear implants) participated, all of whom were in a longitudinal study and had working memory assessed 2 years earlier. Method A dual-component model of working memory was adopted, and a serial recall task measured storage and processing. Potential predictor variables were phonological awareness, vocabulary knowledge, nonverbal IQ, and several treatment variables. Potential dependent functions were literacy, expressive language, and speech-in-noise recognition. Results Children with cochlear implants showed deficits in storage and processing, similar in size to those at second grade. Predictors of verbal working memory differed across groups: Phonological awareness explained the most variance in children with normal hearing; vocabulary explained the most variance in children with cochlear implants. Treatment variables explained little of the variance. Where potentially dependent functions were concerned, verbal working memory accounted for little variance once the variance explained by other predictors was removed. Conclusions The verbal working memory deficits of children with cochlear implants arise due to signal degradation, which limits their abilities to acquire phonological awareness. That hinders their abilities to store items using a phonological code.