Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine if performance on speech and non-speech clinical measures of auditory perception differs between two groups of adults: self-identified native speakers of English and non-native speakers of English who speak Spanish as a first language. The overall objective was to establish whether auditory perception tests developed for native English speakers are appropriate for bilingual Spanish-speaking adults who self-identify as non-native speakers of English. A secondary objective was to determine whether relative performance on English- and Spanish-language versions of a closed-set speech perception in noise task could accurately predict native-like performance on a battery of English language-dependent tests of auditory perception.
Design: Participants were young, normal-hearing adults who self-identified as either native speakers of American English (n = 50) or as non-native speakers of American English (NNE; n = 25) who spoke Spanish as their first language. Participants completed a battery of perceptual tests, including speech tests (e.g., Quick Speech-in-Noise, time-compressed reverberant Quick Speech-in-Noise, etc.) and non-speech tests (Gaps in Noise, Frequency Pattern test, Duration Pattern test, Masking Level Difference). The English version of the Oldenburg Sentence test (OLSA) was administered to both groups; NNE participants also completed the Spanish version of the OLSA.
Results: Analyses indicate that the native speakers of the American English group performed significantly better than the NNE group on all speech-based tests and on the two pattern recognition tests. There was no difference between groups on the remaining non-speech tests. For the NNE group, a difference of more than 2 SD on group-normalized scores for the English and Spanish OLSA accurately predicted poorer than normal performance on two or more tests of auditory perception with a language-dependent component either in the instructions or the stimuli.
Conclusions: The results indicate that a number of English-based tests designed to assess auditory perception may be inappropriate for some Spanish-English bilingual adults. That is, some bilingual adults may perform worse than expected on tests that involve perceiving spoken English, in part because of linguistic differences, and not because of unusually poor auditory perception. The results also support the use of preliminary speech-in-noise screening tests in each of a bilingual patient's languages to establish if auditory perception tests in English are appropriate for a given individual. If a non-native English speaker's screening performance is worse in English than in the native language, one suggested strategy is to select auditory perceptual tests that are impacted minimally or not at all by linguistic differences.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001648 | DOI Listing |
Front Neurosci
February 2025
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, 'Otto Körner', Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Introduction: Cochlear implant (CI) success is often assessed using subjective tests like word recognition scores (WRS). However, these tests are unsuitable for children, non-native speakers, and individuals with cognitive impairments. Mismatch negativity (MMN), an objective measure of cortical auditory processing, offers a promising alternative for evaluating speech perception.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFOtol Neurotol
April 2025
Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York.
Objective: We sought to assess whether the totality of advancements seen in cochlear implant (CI) design and implementation have translated to significant improvements in speech perception scores.
Databases Reviewed: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
Methods: A systematic review of all English-language studies in peer-reviewed journals from 1946 to August 2022 was performed based on the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
Otol Neurotol
April 2025
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Division of Otology & Neurotology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Objective: To assess whether postoperative speech recognition after cochlear implantation (CI) differ between age groups of 80 to 89 and 90+.
Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Setting: Tertiary academic referral center.
Otol Neurotol
April 2025
Macquarie University, North Ryde, Sydney, Australia.
Hypothesis: This study investigates how electrode array types-straight versus perimodiolar-affect cochlear implant (CI) placement (i.e., modiolar proximity and angular depth) and outcomes using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and evoked electrical auditory brainstem responses (eABR).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFOtol Neurotol
April 2025
Department for Hearing, Speech and Voice Disorders, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Objective: The effect of two different notch filters in sound pre-processing of active middle ear implant (AMEI) on speech perception was studied.
Method: Speech perception was tested in 20 adults with AMEI using the Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA) in quiet at a fixed presentation level of 65 dB HL. Three conditions were tested: notch filter option not active, acoustic notch filter activated at a center frequency of 4 kHz and acoustic notch filter activated at a center frequency of 6 kHz.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!