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
. 2019 Aug 14:10:1813.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01813. eCollection 2019.

Consonant and Vowel Confusions in Well-Performing Children and Adolescents With Cochlear Implants, Measured by a Nonsense Syllable Repetition Test

Affiliations

Consonant and Vowel Confusions in Well-Performing Children and Adolescents With Cochlear Implants, Measured by a Nonsense Syllable Repetition Test

Arne Kirkhorn Rødvik et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Although the majority of early implanted, profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants (CIs), will develop correct pronunciation if they receive adequate oral language stimulation, many of them have difficulties with perceiving minute details of speech. The main aim of this study is to measure the confusion of consonants and vowels in well-performing children and adolescents with CIs. The study also aims to investigate how age at onset of severe to profound deafness influences perception. The participants are 36 children and adolescents with CIs (18 girls), with a mean (SD) age of 11.6 (3.0) years (range: 5.9-16.0 years). Twenty-nine of them are prelingually deaf and seven are postlingually deaf. Two reference groups of normal-hearing (NH) 6- and 13-year-olds are included. Consonant and vowel perception is measured by repetition of 16 bisyllabic vowel-consonant-vowel nonsense words and nine monosyllabic consonant-vowel-consonant nonsense words in an open-set design. For the participants with CIs, consonants were mostly confused with consonants with the same voicing and manner, and the mean (SD) voiced consonant repetition score, 63.9 (10.6)%, was considerably lower than the mean (SD) unvoiced consonant score, 76.9 (9.3)%. There was a devoicing bias for the stops; unvoiced stops were confused with other unvoiced stops and not with voiced stops, and voiced stops were confused with both unvoiced stops and other voiced stops. The mean (SD) vowel repetition score was 85.2 (10.6)% and there was a bias in the confusions of [i:] and [y:]; [y:] was perceived as [i:] twice as often as [y:] was repeated correctly. Subgroup analyses showed no statistically significant differences between the consonant scores for pre- and postlingually deaf participants. For the NH participants, the consonant repetition scores were substantially higher and the difference between voiced and unvoiced consonant repetition scores considerably lower than for the participants with CIs. The participants with CIs obtained scores close to ceiling on vowels and real-word monosyllables, but their perception was substantially lower for voiced consonants. This may partly be related to limitations in the CI technology for the transmission of low-frequency sounds, such as insertion depth of the electrode and ability to convey temporal information.

Keywords: cochlear implants; consonants; hearing; speech perception; speech sound confusions; vowels.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Simplified vowel chart displaying the long Norwegian vowels used in the NSRT, plotted according to the two first formant frequencies, F1 and F2 [modified after Kristoffersen, 2000 (2000, p. 17)].
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Unvoiced and voiced consonant scores, vowel scores, and monosyllable scores for the three participant groups. The small circles are outliers that represent scores larger than 1.5 times the interquartile range of the box.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Relative transmission of speech features for pre- and postlingually deaf participants with CIs.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Percentages of correct consonant repetitions and of five types of consonant confusions for participants with CIs. The upper bar describes the complete material of consonant confusions and the eight bars below the horizontal line describe subsets of the material. The units on the horizontal axis are the percentage scores of correct and incorrect repetitions. The bars with a horizontal pattern visualize correct repetitions. Type 1 is confusion between consonants with the same manner and the same voicing. Type 2 is confusion between consonants with the same manner and the opposite voicing. Type 3 is confusion between consonants with a different manner and opposite voicing. Type 4 is confusion between consonants with a different manner and the same voicing. Type 5 is unclassified confusions.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Arisi E., Forti S., Pagani D., Todini L., Torretta S., Ambrosetti U., et al. (2010). Cochlear implantation in adolescents with prelinguistic deafness. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 142 804–808. 10.1016/j.otohns.2010.02.016 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boersma P., Weenink D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.37. Available at: http://www.praat.org (accessed March 14, 2018).
    1. Bruijnzeel H., Ziylan F., Stegeman I., Topsakal V., Grolman W. (2016). A systematic review to define the speech and language benefit of early (<12 months) pediatric cochlear implantation. Audiol. Neurotol. 21 113–126. 10.1159/000443363 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Buckley K. A., Tobey E. A. (2011). Cross-modal plasticity and speech perception in pre- and postlingually deaf cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 32 2–15. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181e8534c - DOI - PubMed
    1. Caldwell M. T., Jiam N. T., Limb C. J. (2017). Assessment and improvement of sound quality in cochlear implant users. Laryngoscope Investig. Otolaryngol. 2 119–124. 10.1002/lio2.71 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources