Abstract
Despite performing well in standard clinical assessments of speech perception, many cochlear implant (CI) users report experiencing significant difficulties when listening in real-world environments. We hypothesize that this disconnect may be related, in part, to the limited ecological validity of tests that are currently used clinically and in research laboratories. The challenges that arise from degraded auditory information provided by a CI, combined with the listener's finite cognitive resources, may lead to difficulties when processing speech material that is more demanding than the single words or single sentences that are used in clinical tests.
Here, we investigate whether speech identification performance and processing effort (indexed by pupil dilation measures) are affected when CI users or normal-hearing control subjects are asked to repeat two sentences presented sequentially instead of just one sentence.
Response accuracy was minimally affected in normal-hearing listeners, but CI users showed a wide range of outcomes, from no change to decrements of up to 45 percentage points. The amount of decrement was not predictable from the CI users' performance in standard clinical tests. Pupillometry measures tracked closely with task difficulty in both the CI group and the normal-hearing group, even though the latter had speech perception scores near ceiling levels for all conditions.
Speech identification performance is significantly degraded in many (but not all) CI users in response to input that is only slightly more challenging than standard clinical tests; specifically, when two sentences are presented sequentially before requesting a response, instead of presenting just a single sentence at a time. This potential "2-sentence problem" represents one of the simplest possible scenarios that go beyond presentation of the single words or sentences used in most clinical tests of speech perception, and it raises the possibility that even good performers in single-sentence tests may be seriously impaired by other ecologically relevant manipulations. The present findings also raise the possibility that a clinical version of a 2-sentence test may provide actionable information for counseling and rehabilitating CI users, and for people who interact with them closely.
