How Does Nonverbal Reasoning Affect Sentence Recognition in Adults with Cochlear Implants and Normal-Hearing Peers?

Abstract

Background: Previous research has demonstrated an association of scores on a visual test of nonverbal reasoning, Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM), with scores on open-set sentence recognition in quiet for adult cochlear implant (CI) users as well as for adults with normal hearing (NH) listening to noise-vocoded sentence materials. Moreover, in that study, CI users demonstrated poorer nonverbal reasoning when compared with NH peers. However, it remains unclear what underlying neurocognitive processes contributed to the association of nonverbal reasoning scores with sentence recognition, and to the poorer scores demonstrated by CI users. Objectives: Three hypotheses were tested: (1) nonverbal reasoning abilities of adult CI users and normal-hearing (NH) age-matched peers would be predicted by performance on more basic neurocognitive measures of working memory capacity, information-processing speed, inhibitory control, and concentration; (2) nonverbal reasoning would mediate the effects of more basic neurocognitive functions on sentence recognition in both groups; and (3) group differences in more basic neurocognitive functions would explain the group differences previously demonstrated in nonverbal reasoning. Method: Eighty-three participants (40 CI and 43 NH) underwent testing of sentence recognition using two sets of sentence materials: sentences produced by a single male talker (Harvard sentences) and high-variability sentences produced by multiple talkers (Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-set, PRESTO). Participants also completed testing of nonverbal reasoning using a visual computerized RPM test, and additional neurocognitive assessments were collected using a visual Digit Span test and a Stroop Color-Word task. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to test our hypotheses while treating age as a covariate. Results: In the CI group, information processing speed on the Stroop task predicted RPM performance, and RPM scores mediated the effects of information processing speed on sentence recognition abilities for both Harvard and PRESTO sentences. In contrast, for the NH group, Stroop inhibitory control predicted RPM performance, and a trend was seen towards RPM scores mediating the effects of inhibitory control on sentence recognition, but only for PRESTO sentences. Poorer RPM performance in CI users than NH controls could be partially attributed to slower information processing speed. Conclusions: Neurocognitive functions contributed differentially to nonverbal reasoning performance in CI users as compared with NH peers, and nonverbal reasoning appeared to partially mediate the effects of these different neurocognitive functions on sentence recognition in both groups, at least for PRESTO sentences. Slower information processing speed accounted for poorer nonverbal reasoning scores in CI users. Thus, it may be that prolonged auditory deprivation contributes to cognitive decline through slower information processing.