Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Mar;39(3):e195-e202.
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001694.

"Product" Versus "Process" Measures in Assessing Speech Recognition Outcomes in Adults With Cochlear Implants

Affiliations

"Product" Versus "Process" Measures in Assessing Speech Recognition Outcomes in Adults With Cochlear Implants

Aaron C Moberly et al. Otol Neurotol. 2018 Mar.

Abstract

Hypotheses: 1) When controlling for age in postlingual adult cochlear implant (CI) users, information-processing functions, as assessed using "process" measures of working memory capacity, inhibitory control, information-processing speed, and fluid reasoning, will predict traditional "product" outcome measures of speech recognition. 2) Demographic/audiologic factors, particularly duration of deafness, duration of CI use, degree of residual hearing, and socioeconomic status, will impact performance on underlying information-processing functions, as assessed using process measures.

Background: Clinicians and researchers rely heavily on endpoint product measures of accuracy in speech recognition to gauge patient outcomes postoperatively. However, these measures are primarily descriptive and were not designed to assess the underlying core information-processing operations that are used during speech recognition. In contrast, process measures reflect the integrity of elementary core subprocesses that are operative during behavioral tests using complex speech signals.

Methods: Forty-two experienced adult CI users were tested using three product measures of speech recognition, along with four process measures of working memory capacity, inhibitory control, speed of lexical/phonological access, and nonverbal fluid reasoning. Demographic and audiologic factors were also assessed.

Results: Scores on product measures were associated with core process measures of speed of lexical/phonological access and nonverbal fluid reasoning. After controlling for participant age, demographic and audiologic factors did not correlate with process measure scores.

Conclusion: Findings provide support for the important foundational roles of information processing operations in speech recognition outcomes of postlingually deaf patients who have received CIs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Firszt JB, Holden LK, Skinner MW, et al. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear Hear. 2004;25(4):375–387. - PubMed
    1. Gifford RH, Shallop JK, Peterson AM. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurotol. 2008;13:193–205. - PubMed
    1. Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2013;34(3):342–360. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moberly AC, Harris MS, Boyce L, et al. Relating quality of life to outcomes and predictors in adult cochlear implant users: Are we measuring the right things? Laryngoscope. 2017 in press. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Capretta NR, Moberly AC. Does quality of life depend on speech recognition performance for adult cochlear implant users? Laryngoscope. 2016;126(3):699–706. - PubMed

Publication types