Vocabulary Facilitates Speech Perception in Children With Hearing Aids

Klein, Kelsey; Walker, Elizabeth; Kirby, Benjamin; McCreery, Ryan W.

doi:10.1044/2017_jslhr-h-16-0086

Cited by 36 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared to the CNH, all groups of children with hearing loss were significantly poorer in vocabulary as measured by the WASI-II Vocabulary subtest, and these were large effects for all groups. At first blush, this finding seems contradictory to those of Briscoe et al (2001) and Klein et al (2017) who reported no difference in the vocabulary scores of children with and without hearing loss. However, those investigators used naming and recognition tasks, whereas the WASI-II vocabulary task that we used requires verbal definitions.…”

Section: Mechanisms That Support Av-nwrcontrasting

confidence: 83%

“…The group with hearing loss performed significantly worse than the normalhearing group at all syllable levels, despite performing no differently on the tests of vocabulary or grammar. In a comparison to 5-to 12-year-olds with normal hearing, the children with mild-to-severe hearing loss scored significantly lower on a nonword serial recall task, but they did not differ from their normal-hearing peers on receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, or articulation (Klein, Walker, Kirby, & McCreery, 2017). Finally, among 47 children in Grades 1 and 5 with slight/mild hearing loss and 96 matched normal-hearing peers, the hearing loss group performed significantly poorer on overall repetition of nonwords from the CNRep but equivalently in the developmental, behavioral, and academic domains (Wake et al, 2006).…”

Section: Does the Nwr Performance Of Children With Hearing Loss Predimentioning

confidence: 70%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance of Children With Hearing Loss on an Audiovisual Version of a Nonword Repetition Task

Al-Salim

Moeller

McGregor

2020

LSHSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aims of this study were to (a) determine if a high-quality adaptation of an audiovisual nonword repetition task can be completed by children with wide-ranging hearing abilities and to (b) examine whether performance on that task is sensitive to child demographics, hearing status, language, working memory, and executive function abilities. Method An audiovisual version of a nonword repetition task was adapted and administered to 100 school-aged children grouped by hearing status: 35 with normal hearing, 22 with mild bilateral hearing loss, 17 with unilateral hearing loss, and 26 cochlear implant users. Participants also completed measures of vocabulary, working memory, and executive function. A generalized linear mixed-effects model was used to analyze performance on the nonword repetition task. Results All children were able to complete the nonword repetition task. Children with unilateral hearing loss and children with cochlear implants repeated nonwords with less accuracy than normal-hearing peers. After adjusting for the influence of vocabulary and working memory, main effects were found for syllable length and hearing status, but no interaction effect was observed. Conclusions The audiovisual nonword repetition task captured individual differences in the performance of children with wide-ranging hearing abilities. The task could act as a useful tool to aid in identifying children with unilateral or mild bilateral hearing loss who have language impairments beyond those imposed by the hearing loss.

show abstract

Section: Mechanisms That Support Av-nwrcontrasting

confidence: 83%

Section: Does the Nwr Performance Of Children With Hearing Loss Predimentioning

confidence: 70%

Performance of Children With Hearing Loss on an Audiovisual Version of a Nonword Repetition Task

Al-Salim

Moeller

McGregor

2020

LSHSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The exact underlying mechanism for processing efficiency is not known, though it is believed to involve central processing and could involve various cognitive processes including working memory, attention, and effort. There is evidence that both vocabulary ( Klein, Walker, Kirby, & McCreery, 2017 ; McCreery et al., 2017) and working memory (McCreery et al., 2017) significantly impact speech recognition in noise for children. In the current study, we had obtained the estimates of receptive vocabulary (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th edition, PPVT-4; L. M. Dunn & Dunn, 2007 ) and nonverbal intelligence (Leiter International Performance Scale, 3rd edition; Roid, Miller, Pomplun, & Koch, 2013 ) for 16 of the 36 children with CI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship Between Spectral Modulation Detection and Speech Recognition: Adult Versus Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients demonstrate a reliable relationship between spectral modulation detection and speech understanding. Prior studies documenting this relationship have focused on postlingually deafened adult CI recipients—leaving an open question regarding the relationship between spectral resolution and speech understanding for adults and children with prelingual onset of deafness. Here, we report CI performance on the measures of speech recognition and spectral modulation detection for 578 CI recipients including 477 postlingual adults, 65 prelingual adults, and 36 prelingual pediatric CI users. The results demonstrated a significant correlation between spectral modulation detection and various measures of speech understanding for 542 adult CI recipients. For 36 pediatric CI recipients, however, there was no significant correlation between spectral modulation detection and speech understanding in quiet or in noise nor was spectral modulation detection significantly correlated with listener age or age at implantation. These findings suggest that pediatric CI recipients might not depend upon spectral resolution for speech understanding in the same manner as adult CI recipients. It is possible that pediatric CI users are making use of different cues, such as those contained within the temporal envelope, to achieve high levels of speech understanding. Further investigation is warranted to investigate the relationship between spectral and temporal resolution and speech recognition to describe the underlying mechanisms driving peripheral auditory processing in pediatric CI users.

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that children’s pronounced speech-in-noise difficulties reflect their inexperience with language. However, studies that have tested for associations between masked speech recognition and language abilities reveal mixed findings as some studies do not support this association (e.g., Garlock et al, 2001; McCreery and Stelmachowicz, 2011; Nittrouer et al, 2013; Klein et al, 2017; McCreery et al, 2017). Several studies have reported a correlation between children’s speech-in-noise recognition scores and the size of their vocabulary (e.g., McCreery and Stelmachowicz, 2011; Vance and Martindale, 2012), but this relationship has not been observed in other studies (e.g., Eisenberg et al, 2000; Nittrouer et al, 2013).…”

Section: Factors Responsible For Developmental Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Masked Speech Recognition in School-Age Children

Leibold

Buss

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children who are typically developing often struggle to hear and understand speech in the presence of competing background sounds, particularly when the background sounds are also speech. For example, in many cases, young school-age children require an additional 5- to 10-dB signal-to-noise ratio relative to adults to achieve the same word or sentence recognition performance in the presence of two streams of competing speech. Moreover, adult-like performance is not observed until adolescence. Despite ample converging evidence that children are more susceptible to auditory masking than adults, the field lacks a comprehensive model that accounts for the development of masked speech recognition. This review provides a synthesis of the literature on the typical development of masked speech recognition. Age-related changes in the ability to recognize phonemes, words, or sentences in the presence of competing background sounds will be discussed by considering (1) how masking sounds influence the sensory encoding of target speech; (2) differences in the time course of development for speech-in-noise versus speech-in-speech recognition; and (3) the central auditory and cognitive processes required to separate and attend to target speech when multiple people are speaking at the same time.

show abstract

Vocabulary Facilitates Speech Perception in Children With Hearing Aids

Cited by 36 publications

References 57 publications

Performance of Children With Hearing Loss on an Audiovisual Version of a Nonword Repetition Task

Performance of Children With Hearing Loss on an Audiovisual Version of a Nonword Repetition Task

The Relationship Between Spectral Modulation Detection and Speech Recognition: Adult Versus Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients

Masked Speech Recognition in School-Age Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About