Consonant and Vowel Identification in Cochlear Implant Users Measured by Nonsense Words: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Arne Kirkhorn Rødvik,Juha Tapio Silvola,Ona Bø Wie,Janne Von Koss Torkildsen,Marit Aarvaag Storaker

doi:10.1044/2018_jslhr-h-16-0463

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish a baseline of the vowel and consonant identification scores in prelingually and postlingually deaf users of multichannel cochlear implants (CIs) tested with consonant-vowel-consonant and vowel-consonant-vowel nonsense syllables. Six electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles reporting consonant and vowel identification scores in CI users measured by nonsense words. Relevant studies were independently assessed and screened by 2 reviewers. Consonant and vowel identification scores were presented in forest plots and compared between studies in a meta-analysis. Forty-seven articles with 50 studies, including 647 participants, thereof 581 postlingually deaf and 66 prelingually deaf, met the inclusion criteria of this study. The mean performance on vowel identification tasks for the postlingually deaf CI users was 76.8% (N = 5), which was higher than the mean performance for the prelingually deaf CI users (67.7%; N = 1). The mean performance on consonant identification tasks for the postlingually deaf CI users was higher (58.4%; N = 44) than for the prelingually deaf CI users (46.7%; N = 6). The most common consonant confusions were found between those with same manner of articulation (/k/ as /t/, /m/ as /n/, and /p/ as /t/). The mean performance on consonant identification tasks for the prelingually and postlingually deaf CI users was found. There were no statistically significant differences between the scores for prelingually and postlingually deaf CI users. The consonants that were incorrectly identified were typically confused with other consonants with the same acoustic properties, namely, voicing, duration, nasality, and silent gaps. A univariate metaregression model, although not statistically significant, indicated that duration of implant use in postlingually deaf adults predict a substantial portion of their consonant identification ability. As there is no ceiling effect, a nonsense syllable identification test may be a useful addition to the standard test battery in audiology clinics when assessing the speech perception of CI users.

Highlights

Arne Kirkhorn Rødvik,a Janne von Koss Torkildsen,a Ona Bø Wie,a,b Marit Aarvaag Storaker,c,d and Juha Tapio Silvolab,c,e
As there is no ceiling effect, a nonsense syllable identification test may be a useful addition to the standard test battery in audiology clinics when assessing the speech perception of cochlear implants (CIs) users
The offering of multichannel cochlear implants (CIs) to profoundly deaf and hard-of-hearing adults and children is a well-established medical procedure today, and there are more than 600,000 CI users in the world aDepartment of Special Needs Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo, Norway bOslo University Hospital, Norway cInstitute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway dLillehammer Hospital, Norway eAkershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway Correspondence to Arne Kirkhorn Rødvik: a.k.rodvik@isp.uio.no Editor-in-Chief: Frederick (Erick) Gallun Editor: Matthew Fitzgerald Received January 9, 2017

Summary

Introduction

Arne Kirkhorn Rødvik,a Janne von Koss Torkildsen,a Ona Bø Wie,a,b Marit Aarvaag Storaker,c,d and Juha Tapio Silvolab,c,e. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish a baseline of the vowel and consonant identification scores in prelingually and postlingually deaf users of multichannel cochlear implants (CIs) tested with consonant–vowel–consonant and vowel–consonant–vowel nonsense syllables. Traditional speech perception tests using sentences and words as stimuli have increasingly produced ceiling or near-ceiling effects in CI users (Blamey et al, 2013). This may be due to a number of factors, such as shorter time of deafness before implantation, Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion