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
. 2021 Mar 1;42(3):e272-e278.
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002925.

Word and Nonword Reading Efficiency in Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Users

Terrin N Tamati  1   2 , Kara J Vasil  1 , William G Kronenberger  3 , David B Pisoni  4 , Aaron C Moberly  1 , Christin Ray  1
Affiliations

Word and Nonword Reading Efficiency in Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Users

Terrin N Tamati et al. Otol Neurotol. .

Abstract

Hypothesis: This study tested the hypotheses that 1) experienced adult cochlear implants (CI) users demonstrate poorer reading efficiency relative to normal-hearing controls, 2) reading efficiency reflects basic, underlying neurocognitive skills, and 3) reading efficiency relates to speech recognition outcomes in CI users.

Background: Weak phonological processing skills have been associated with poor speech recognition outcomes in postlingually deaf adult CI users. Phonological processing can be captured in nonauditory measures of reading efficiency, which may have wide use in patients with hearing loss. This study examined reading efficiency in adults CI users, and its relation to speech recognition outcomes.

Methods: Forty-eight experienced, postlingually deaf adult CI users (ECIs) and 43 older age-matched peers with age-normal hearing (ONHs) completed the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2), which measures word and nonword reading efficiency. Participants also completed a battery of nonauditory neurocognitive measures and auditory sentence recognition tasks.

Results: ECIs and ONHs did not differ in word (ECIs: M = 78.2, SD = 11.4; ONHs: M = 83.3, SD = 10.2) or nonword reading efficiency (ECIs: M = 42.0, SD = 11.2; ONHs: M = 43.7, SD = 10.3). For ECIs, both scores were related to untimed word reading with moderate to strong effect sizes (r = 0.43-0.69), but demonstrated differing relations with other nonauditory neurocognitive measures with weak to moderate effect sizes (word: r = 0.11-0.44; nonword: r = (-)0.15 to (-)0.42). Word reading efficiency was moderately related to sentence recognition outcomes in ECIs (r = 0.36-0.40).

Conclusion: Findings suggest that postlingually deaf adult CI users demonstrate neither impaired word nor nonword reading efficiency, and these measures reflect different underlying mechanisms involved in language processing. The relation between sentence recognition and word reading efficiency, a measure of lexical access speed, suggests that this measure may be useful for explaining outcome variability in adult CI users.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors disclose no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Lazard DS, Vincent C, Venail F, et al. Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlingually deaf adults using cochlear implants: A new conceptual model over time. PLoS One 2012;7:e48739. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blamey P, Artieres F, Başkent D, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlingually deaf adults using cochlear implants: An update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol 2013;18:36–47. - PubMed
    1. Moberly AC, Bates C, Harris MS, Pisoni DB. The enigma of poor performance by adults with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2016;37:1522–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heydebrand G, Hale S, Potts L, Gotter B, Skinner M. Cognitive predictors of improvements in adults’ spoken word recognition six months after cochlear implant activation. Audiol Neurootol 2007;12:254–64. - PubMed
    1. Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2013;34:342–60. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types