Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2023; 34(09/10): 217-224
DOI: 10.1055/a-2181-2652
Research Article

Assessment of High-Variability Speech Recognition in Adult Cochlear Implant Users using PRESTO

Terrin N. Tamati
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Kathleen F. Faulkner
2   Center for Applied Auditory Research, Oticon A/S, Smørum, Denmark
,
David B. Pisoni
3   Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
› Author Affiliations Funding T.N.T. has received grant funding from Cochlear Americas for an unrelated investigator-initiated research study.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Speech recognition in adult cochlear implant (CI) users is typically assessed using sentence materials with low talker variability. Little is known about the effects of talker variability on speech recognition in adult CI users, the factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition with high talker variability, or how sentence materials with high talker variability could be utilized clinically.

Purpose To examine the effects of talker variability on sentence recognition in adult CI users, using sentences from the Perceptually Robust English Sentence Test Open-Set (PRESTO), and to examine the relation between working memory capacity and high-variability speech recognition.

Research Design Postlingually deafened adult CI users and adults with self-reported normal hearing (NH) under CI simulation completed sentence recognition tests that contained varying levels of talker variability, including Hearing in Noise Test (HINT; low-variability), AzBio (moderate-variability), and PRESTO sentences (high-variability). The tasks were completed in both quiet and multitalker babble (MTB). For the adult CI users only, the relation between sentence recognition accuracy and working memory capacity was assessed.

Study Sample Twenty postlingually deafened adult CI users and 35 NH adults under 8-channel acoustic noise-vocoder simulations of CI hearing.

Results In both CI and NH groups, performance decreased as a function of increased talker variability, with the best scores obtained on HINT (low-variability), then AzBio (moderate-variability), followed by PRESTO (high-variability) in quiet. In MTB, performance was significantly lower on PRESTO sentences, compared with HINT and AzBio sentences, which were not significantly different. Working memory capacity in the CI users was related to sentence recognition accuracy across all materials and conditions.

Conclusion Findings from the current study suggest that the increased talker variability in the PRESTO sentence materials has a detrimental effect on speech recognition in both adult CI users and NH listeners under CI simulation, particularly when speech is further degraded by MTB. For adult CI users, working memory capacity contributes to speech recognition abilities. Sentence recognition testing with high-variability, multitalker materials, as in PRESTO, provides robust assessment of speech recognition abilities for research and clinical application, generating a wide range of scores for evaluating individual differences without ceiling effects when compared with conventional low-variability sentences.

Keywords

speech recognition - cochlear implants - talker variability - adverse conditions - individual differences

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 14 May 2023

Accepted: 20 September 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
25 September 2023

Article published online:
12 December 2024

© 2024. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Mattys SL, Davis MH, Bradlow AR, Scott SK. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang Cogn Process 2012; 27: 953-978
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Pisoni DB. Some thoughts on “normalization” in speech perception. In: Johnson K, Mullennix JW. eds. Talker Variability in Speech Processing. San Diego (CA):: Academic Press;; 1997: 9-32
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Goldinger SD, Pisoni DB, Logan JS. On the nature of talker variability effects on recall of spoken word lists. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1991; 17 (01) 152-162
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Magnuson JS, Nusbaum HC, Akahane-Yamada R, Saltzman D. Talker familiarity and the accommodation of talker variability. Atten Percept Psychophys 2021; 83 (04) 1842-1860
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Martin CS, Mullennix JW, Pisoni DB, Summers WV. Effects of talker variability on recall of spoken word lists. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1989; 15 (04) 676-684
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Mullennix JW, Pisoni DB, Martin CS. Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 85 (01) 365-378
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Nusbaum HC, Magnuson JS. Talker normalization: phonetic constancy as a cognitive process. In: Johnson K, Mullennix JW. eds. Talker Variability in Speech Processing. San Diego (CA):: Academic Press;; 1997: 109-132
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Boisvert I, Reis M, Au A, Cowan R, Dowell RC. Cochlear implantation outcomes in adults: a scoping review. PLoS One 2020; 15 (05) e0232421
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Başkent D, Gaudrain E, Tamati TN, Wagner A. Perception and psychoacoustics of speech in cochlear implant users. In: Cacace AT, de Kleine E, Holt AG, van Dijk P. eds. Scientific Foundations of Audiology. Perspectives from Physics, Biology, Modelling, and Medicine;; 2016: 185-320
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Pichora-Fuller MK, Kramer SE, Eckert MA. et al. Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 2016; 37 (Suppl. 01) 5S-27S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Rönnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A. et al. The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci 2013; 7: 31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Hughes SE, Hutchings HA, Rapport FL, McMahon CM, Boisvert I. Social connectedness and perceived listening effort in adult cochlear implant users: a grounded theory to establish content validity for a new patient-reported outcome measure. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (05) 922-934
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Mullennix JW, Pisoni DB. Stimulus variability and processing dependencies in speech perception. Percept Psychophys 1990; 47 (04) 379-390
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Lim SJ, Shinn-Cunningham BG, Perrachione TK. Effects of talker continuity and speech rate on auditory working memory. Atten Percept Psychophys 2019; 81 (04) 1167-1177
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Nygaard LC, Pisoni DB. Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Percept Psychophys 1998; 60 (03) 355-376
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Garofolo JS, Lamel LF, Fisher WM, Fiscus JG, Pallett DS, Dahlgren NL. The DARPA TIMIT Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus. Philadelphia:: Linguistic Data Consortium;; 1993
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Loizou PC, Dorman M, Tu Z. On the number of channels needed to understand speech. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106 (4 Pt 1): 2097-2103
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Fu QJ, Shannon RV, Galvin III JJ. Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 112 (04) 1664-1674
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Dorman MF, Spahr AJ, Loizou PC, Dana CJ, Schmidt JS. Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS). Ear Hear 2005; 26 (04) 371-380
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 King SE, Firszt JB, Reeder RM, Holden LK, Strube M. Evaluation of TIMIT sentence list equivalency with adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (05) 313-331
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Srinivasan NK, Tobey EA, Loizou PC. Prior exposure to a reverberant listening environment improves speech intelligibility in adult cochlear implant listeners. Cochlear Implants Int 2016; 17 (02) 98-104
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Gifford RH, Loiselle L, Natale S. et al. Speech understanding in noise for adults with cochlear implants: effects of hearing configuration, source location certainty, and head movement. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2018; 61 (05) 1306-1321
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Faulkner K, Tamati TN, Gilbert JL, Pisoni DB. List equivalency for the clinical evaluation of speech recognition with PRESTO. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26: 1-13
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Gilbert JL, Tamati TN, Pisoni DB. Development, reliability, and validity of PRESTO: a new high-variability sentence recognition test. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (01) 26-36
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Nusbaum HC, Pisoni DB, Davis CK. Sizing up the Hoosier Mental Lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report No. 10, Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1984: 357-376
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Tamati TN, Gilbert JL, Pisoni DB. Some factors underlying individual differences in speech recognition on PRESTO: a first report. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (07) 616-634
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Tamati TN, Pisoni DB. Non-native listeners' recognition of high-variability speech using PRESTO. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25 (09) 869-892
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Moberly AC, Mattingly JK, Castellanos I. How does nonverbal reasoning affect sentence recognition in adults with cochlear implants and normal-hearing peers?. Audiol Neurotol 2019; 24 (03) 127-138
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Tamati TN, Ray C, Vasil KJ, Pisoni DB, Moberly AC. High- and low-performing adult cochlear implant users on high-variability sentence recognition: differences in auditory spectral resolution and neurocognitive functioning. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (05) 324-335
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Bosen AK, Barry MF. Serial recall predicts vocoded sentence recognition across spectral resolutions. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2020; 63 (04) 1282-1298
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95 (02) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM. et al. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (01) 112-117
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Fu QJ. TigerSpeech technology: Innovative speech software, version 1.05.02. 2006 . Accessed October 30, 2024 at: http://www.tigerspeech.com/tst_tigercis.html/
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995; 270 (5234) 303-304
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Crannel CW, Parrish JM. A comparison of immediate memory span for digits, letters, and words. J Psychol: Interdisc and Applied 1957; 44: 319-327
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Cluff MS, Luce PA. Similarity neighborhoods of spoken two-syllable words: retroactive effects on multiple activation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1990; 16 (03) 551-563
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Studebaker GA. A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 1985; 28 (03) 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Osberger MJ. Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (05) 470-481
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Sommers MS, Kirk KI, Pisoni DB. Some considerations in evaluating spoken word recognition by normal-hearing, noise-masked normal-hearing, and cochlear implant listeners. I: the effects of response format. Ear Hear 1997; 18 (02) 89-99
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Kaiser AR, Kirk KI, Lachs L, Pisoni DB. Talker and lexical effects on audiovisual word recognition by adults with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2003; 46 (02) 390-404
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Tamati TN, Sijp L, Başkent D. Talker variability in word recognition under cochlear implant simulation: does talker gender matter?. J Acoust Soc Am 2020; 147 (04) EL370-EL376
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Akeroyd MA. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (Suppl. 02) S53-S71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Rudner M, Rönnberg J, Lunner T. Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol 2011; 22 (03) 156-167
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar