Open AccessVerbal working memory and inhibition‐concentration in adults with cochlear implants
Author(s) -
Moberly Aaron C.,
Houston Derek M.,
Harris Michael S.,
Adunka Oliver F.,
Castellanos Irina
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2378-8038
DOI - 10.1002/lio2.90
Subject(s) - neurocognitive , modality (human–computer interaction) , audiology , active listening , psychology , sentence , working memory , memory span , fluency , cognitive psychology , verbal learning , reading (process) , stimulus modality , verbal fluency test , neuropsychology , cognition , medicine , communication , neuroscience , linguistics , computer science , philosophy , mathematics education , human–computer interaction , sensory system
Objectives Neurocognitive functions contribute to speech recognition in postlingual adults with cochlear implants (CIs). In particular, better verbal working memory (WM) on modality‐specific (auditory) WM tasks predicts better speech recognition. It remains unclear, however, whether this association can be attributed to basic underlying modality‐general neurocognitive functions, or whether it is solely a result of the degraded nature of auditory signals delivered by the CI. Three hypotheses were tested: 1) Both modality‐specific and modality‐general tasks of verbal WM would predict scores of sentence recognition in speech‐shaped noise; 2) Basic modality‐general neurocognitive functions of controlled fluency and inhibition‐concentration would predict both modality‐specific and modality‐general verbal WM; and 3) Scores on both tasks of verbal WM would mediate the effects of more basic neurocognitive functions on sentence recognition. Study Design Cross‐sectional study of 30 postlingual adults with CIs and thirty age‐matched normal‐hearing (NH) controls. Materials and Methods Participants were tested for sentence recognition in speech‐shaped noise, along with verbal WM using a modality‐general task (Reading Span) and an auditory modality‐specific task (Listening Span). Participants were also assessed for controlled fluency and inhibition‐concentration abilities. Results For CI users only, Listening Span scores predicted sentence recognition, and Listening Span scores mediated the effects of inhibition‐concentration on speech recognition. Scores on Reading Span were not related to sentence recognition for either group. Conclusion Inhibition‐concentration skills play an important role in CI users' sentence recognition skills, with effects mediated by modality‐specific verbal WM. Further studies will examine inhibition‐concentration and WM skills as novel targets for clinical intervention. Level of Evidence 4.