» Articles » PMID: 8654902

Lexical Effects on Spoken Word Recognition by Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users

Overview
Journal Ear Hear
Date 1995 Oct 1
PMID 8654902
Citations 113
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The purposes of this study were 1) to examine the effect of lexical characteristics on the spoken word recognition performance of children who use a multichannel cochlear implant (CI), and 2) to compare their performance on lexically controlled word lists with their performance on a traditional test of word recognition, the PB-K.

Design: In two different experiments, 14 to 19 pediatric CI users who demonstrated at least some open-set speech recognition served as subjects. Based on computational analyses, word lists were constructed to allow systematic examination of the effects of word frequency, lexical density (i.e., the number of phonemically similar words, or neighbors), and word length. The subjects' performance on these new tests and the PB-K also was compared.

Results: The percentage of words correctly identified was significantly higher for lexically "easy" words (high frequency words with few neighbors) than for "hard" words (low frequency words with many neighbors), but there was no lexical effect on phoneme recognition scores. Word recognition performance was consistently higher on the lexically controlled lists than on the PB-K. In addition, word recognition was better for multisyllabic than for momosyllabic stimuli.

Conclusions: These results demonstrate that pediatric cochlear implant users are sensitive to the acoustic-phonetic similarities among words, that they organize words into similarity neighborhoods in long-term memory, and they use this structural information in recognizing isolated words. The results further suggest that the PB-K underestimates these subjects' spoken words recognition.

Citing Articles

Influence of Child-Level Factors and Lexical Characteristics on Vocabulary Knowledge of Children With Cochlear Implants and Hearing Aids.

Lund E, Werfel K Dev Sci. 2025; 28(3):e70007.

PMID: 40066854 PMC: 11894921. DOI: 10.1111/desc.70007.


Consonant aspiration in Mandarin-speaking children: a developmental perspective from perception and production.

Li Y, Li Q, Du Y, Wang L, Li L, Wen J Front Pediatr. 2025; 12:1465454.

PMID: 39882208 PMC: 11776868. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2024.1465454.


Association of domain-general speed of information processing with spoken language outcomes in prelingually-deaf children with cochlear implants.

Kronenberger W, Castellanos I, Pisoni D Hear Res. 2024; 450:109069.

PMID: 38889562 PMC: 11260235. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2024.109069.


[Assessment of auditory perception of children with single-sided deafness after cochlear implantation].

Wang X, Chen J, Zhang R, Wu Q, Fan M, Shi W Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2024; 38(5):436-441.

PMID: 38686484 PMC: 11387322. DOI: 10.13201/j.issn.2096-7993.2024.05.017.


Using network science to examine audio-visual speech perception with a multi-layer graph.

Vitevitch M, Lachs L PLoS One. 2024; 19(3):e0300926.

PMID: 38551907 PMC: 10980250. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300926.


References
1.
Fryauf-Bertschy H, Tyler R, Kelsay D, Gantz B . Performance over time of congenitally deaf and postlingually deafened children using a multichannel cochlear implant. J Speech Hear Res. 1992; 35(4):913-20. DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3504.913. View

2.
Miyamoto R, Osberger M, Robbins A, Myres W, Kessler K, Pope M . Longitudinal evaluation of communication skills of children with single- or multichannel cochlear implants. Am J Otol. 1992; 13(3):215-22. View

3.
Marslen-Wilson W . Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition. 1987; 25(1-2):71-102. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(87)90005-9. View

4.
Goldinger S, Luce P, Pisoni D . Priming Lexical Neighbors of Spoken Words: Effects of Competition and Inhibition. J Mem Lang. 2014; 28(5):501-518. PMC: 3901307. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596x(89)90009-0. View

5.
HUDGINS C, Hawkins J . The development of recorded auditory tests for measuring hearing loss for speech. Laryngoscope. 2010; 57(1):57-89. View