RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Communication under sharply degraded auditory input and the “2-sentence” problem
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.07.22.22277720
DO 10.1101/2022.07.22.22277720
A1 Mario A Svirsky
A1 Jonathan D Neukam
A1 Nicole H Capach
A1 Nicole M Amichetti
A1 Annette Lavender
A1 Arthur Wingfield
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/22/2022.07.22.22277720.abstract
AB Introduction Many cochlear implant (CI) users who do quite well in standard clinical tests of speech perception report that a great amount of effort is required when listening in real-world situations. We hypothesize that the combined constraints of the sharply degraded signal provided by a CI and finite cognitive resources may lead to a “tipping point” when listeners are confronted with speech material that is more complex than the single words or single sentences that are used in clinical tests. Beyond this tipping point, communication may become too difficult, even for CI users whose standard speech intelligibility scores are above average.Methods Here, we investigate whether speech identification performance and processing effort (indexed by pupil dilation measures) are affected when CI users or normal hearing control subjects are asked to repeat two sentences presented sequentially instead of just one sentence.Results Response accuracy was minimally affected in normal hearing listeners, but CI users showed a wide range of outcomes, from no change to decrements of up to 45 percentage points. The amount of decrement was not predictable from the CI users’ performance in standard clinical tests. Pupillometry measures tracked closely with effort in both the CI group and the normal hearing group, even though the latter had speech perception scores near ceiling levels for all conditions.Discussion A communicative tipping point may be reached in many (but not all) CI users in response to input that is only minimally more challenging than standard clinical tests; specifically, when two sentences are presented sequentially before requesting a response, instead of presenting just a single sentence at a time. This potential “2-Sentence Problem” represents one of the simplest possible scenarios that go beyond presentation of a single word or sentence, and it raises the possibility that even good performers in clinical tests of speech perception may be brought beyond the tipping point by other ecologically relevant manipulations. The present findings also raise the possibility that a clinical version of a 2-sentence test may provide actionable information for counseling and rehabilitating CI users.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant No. R01 DC016834Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All participants (in both experiments) were recruited and tested in accordance with NYU Grossman School of Medicine IRB approval # 18-01806.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.