The Effect of Learning Modality and Auditory Feedback on Word Memory: Cochlear-Implanted versus Normal-Hearing Adults

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

In recent years, the effect of cognitive abilities on the achievements of cochlear implant (CI) users has been evaluated. Some studies have suggested that gaps between CI users and normal-hearing (NH) peers in cognitive tasks are modality specific, and occur only in auditory tasks.

Purpose:

The present study focused on the effect of learning modality (auditory, visual) and auditory feedback on word memory in young adults who were prelingually deafened and received CIs before the age of 5 yr, and their NH peers.

Research Design:

A production effect (PE) paradigm was used, in which participants learned familiar study words by vocal production (saying aloud) or by no-production (silent reading or listening). Words were presented (1) in the visual modality (written) and (2) in the auditory modality (heard). CI users performed the visual condition twice—once with the implant ON and once with it OFF. All conditions were followed by free recall tests.

Study Sample:

Twelve young adults, long-term CI users, implanted between ages 1.7 and 4.5 yr, and who showed ≥50% in monosyllabic consonant-vowel-consonant open-set test with their implants were enrolled. A group of 14 age-matched NH young adults served as the comparison group.

Data Collection and Analysis:

For each condition, we calculated the proportion of study words recalled. Mixed-measures analysis of variances were carried out with group (NH, CI) as a between-subjects variable, and learning condition (aloud or silent reading) as a within-subject variable. Following this, paired sample t tests were used to evaluate the PE size (differences between aloud and silent words) and overall recall ratios (aloud and silent words combined) in each of the learning conditions.

Results:

With visual word presentation, young adults with CIs (regardless of implant status CI-ON or CI-OFF), showed comparable memory performance (and a similar PE) to NH peers. However, with auditory presentation, young adults with CIs showed poorer memory for nonproduced words (hence a larger PE) relative to their NH peers.

Conclusions:

The results support the construct that young adults with CIs will benefit more from learning via the visual modality (reading), rather than the auditory modality (listening). Importantly, vocal production can largely improve auditory word memory, especially for the CI group.

This paper was orally presented at The American Cochlear Implant Alliance (CI2015 DC) in Washington, DC, October 15–17, 2015.

• REFERENCES

• AuBuchon AM, Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG. 2015; Short-term and working memory impairments in early-implanted, long-term cochlear implant users are independent of audibility and speech production. Ear Hear 36 (06) 733-737
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baddeley A, Hitch G. 1998; Recent developments in working memory. Curr Opin Neurobiol 8 (02) 234-238
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bavelier D, Dye MWG, Hauser PC. 2006; Do deaf individuals see better?. Trends Cogn Sci 10 (11) 512-518
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boothroyd A. 1968; Statistical theory of the speech discrimination score. J Acoust Soc Am 43 (02) 362-367
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Castel AD, Rhodes MG, Friedman MC. 2013; Predicting memory benefits in the production effect: The use and misuse of self-generated distinctive cues when making judgments of learning. Mem Cognit 41 (01) 28-35
  Google Scholar
• Cleary M, Pisoni DB, Geers AE. 2001; Some measures of verbal and spatial working memory in eight- and nine-year-old hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 22 (05) 395-411
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Conway CM, Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG. 2009; The importance of sound for cognitive sequencing abilities: the auditory scaffolding hypothesis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 18 (05) 275-279
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Daneman M, Carpenter PA. 1980; Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 19 (04) 450-466
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Davidson LS, Geers AE, Blamey PJ, Tobey EA, Brenner CA. 2011; Factors contributing to speech perception scores in long-term pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 32 (01) (Suppl) 19S-26S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dawson PW, McKay CM, Busby PA, Clark GM. 2002; Rate-of-processing ability in children using cochlear implants and its relevance to speech perception. Cochlear Implants Int 3 (02) 126-138
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Raeve L, Vermeulen A, Snik A. 2015; Verbal cognition in deaf children using cochlear implants: effect of unilateral and bilateral stimulation. Audiol Neurootol 20 (04) 261-266
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Desjardins JL, Doherty KA. 2013; Age-related changes in listening effort for various types of masker noises. Ear Hear 34 (03) 261-272
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Engel-Yeger B, Durr DH, Josman N. 2011; Comparison of memory and meta-memory abilities of children with cochlear implant and normal hearing peers. Disabil Rehabil 33 (09) 770-777
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fawcett JM, Quinlan CK, Taylor TL. 2012; Interplay of the production and picture superiority effects: a signal detection analysis. Memory 20 (07) 655-666
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Figueras B, Edwards L, Langdon D. 2008; Executive function and language in deaf children. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 13 (03) 362-377
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forrin ND, Macleod CM, Ozubko JD. 2012; Widening the boundaries of the production effect. Mem Cognit 40 (07) 1046-1055
  Google Scholar
• Fryauf-Bertschy H, Tyler RS, Kelsay DM, Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG. 1997; Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: the influences of age at implant and length of device use. J Speech Lang Hear Res 40 (01) 183-199
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Geers AE, Nicholas J, Tye-Murray N, Uchanski R, Brenner C, Davidson LS, Toretta G, Tobey EA. 2000; Effects of communication mode on skills of long-term cochlear implant users. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 185: 89-92
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Geers AE, Pisoni DB, Brenner C. 2013; Complex working memory span in cochlear implanted and normal hearing teenagers. Otol Neurotol 34 (03) 396-401
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Geers AE, Sedey AL. 2011; Language and verbal reasoning skills in adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience. Ear Hear 32 (01) (Suppl) 39S-48S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hughes KC, Galvin KL. 2013; Measuring listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults with unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants or normal hearing. Cochlear Implants Int 14 (03) 121-129
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Icht M, Mama Y. 2015; The production effect in memory: a prominent mnemonic in children. J Child Lang 42 (05) 1102-1124
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Icht M, Mama Y, Algom D. 2014; The production effect in memory: multiple species of distinctiveness. Front Psychol 5: 886
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Miyamoto RT. 2000. Lexical discrimination by children with cochlear implants: effects of age at implantation and communication mode. In Proceedings of the Vth International Cochlear Implant Conference . New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers;
  Google Scholar
• Kronenberger WG, Pisoni DB, Henning SC, Colson BG, Hazzard LM. 2011; Working memory training for children with cochlear implants: a pilot study. J Speech Lang Hear Res 54 (04) 1182-1196
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lin OYH, MacLeod CM. 2012; Aging and the production effect: a test of the distinctiveness account. Can J Exp Psychol 66 (03) 212-216
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MacLeod CM. 2011; I said, you said: The production effect gets personal. Psychon Bull Rev 18 (06) 1197-1202
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• MacLeod CM, Gopie N, Hourihan KL, Neary KR, Ozubko JD. 2010; The production effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 36 (03) 671-685
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mama Y, Fostick L, Icht M. (submitted) The impact of different background noises on the Production Effect: evidence for costs and benefits in free recall.
  Google Scholar
• Mama Y, Icht M. 2016; a Auditioning the distinctiveness account: expanding the production effect to the auditory modality reveals the superiority of writing over vocalising. Memory 24 (01) 98-113
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mama Y, Icht M. 2016; b Influence of retrieval mode on effects of production: evidence for costs in free recall. Can J Exp Psychol 70 (02) 177-185
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moberly AC, Lowenstein JH, Nittrouer S. 2016; Word recognition variability with cochlear implants: “perceptual attention” versus “auditory sensitivity”. Ear Hear 37 (01) 14-26
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Niparko JK, Tobey EA, Thal DJ, Eisenberg LS, Wang NY, Quittner AL, Fink NE. 2010; Spoken language development in children following cochlear implantation. JAMA 303 (15) 1498-1506
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ozubko JD, Hourihan KL, MacLeod CM. 2012; Production benefits learning: the production effect endures and improves memory for text. Memory 20 (07) 717-727
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pals C, Sarampalis A, Başkent D. 2013; Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56 (04) 1075-1084
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pisoni DB. 2000; Cognitive factors and cochlear implants: some thoughts on perception, learning, and memory in speech perception. Ear Hear 21 (01) 70-78
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pisoni DB, Cleary M. 2003; Measures of working memory span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 24 (01) (Suppl) 106S-120S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pisoni DB, Cleary M. 2004. Learning, memory, and cognitive processes in deaf children following cochlear implantation. In: Zeng FG, Popper AN, Fay RR. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research: Auditory Prosthesis. New York, NY: Springer; 377-426
  Google Scholar
• Pisoni DB, Conway CM, Kronenberger W, Henning S, Anaya E. 2010. Executive function, cognitive control, and sequence learning in deaf children with cochlear implants. In: Marschark M, Spencer PE. The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 439-457
  Google Scholar
• Pisoni DB, Conway CM, Kronenberger W, Horn DL, Karpicke J, Henning S. 2008. Efficacy and effectiveness of cochlear implants in deaf children. In: Marschark M, Hauser P. Deaf Cognition: Foundations and Outcomes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 52-101
  Google Scholar
• Pisoni DB, Geers AE. 2000; Working memory in deaf children with cochlear implants: correlations between digit span and measures of spoken language processing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 185: 92-93
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG, Roman AS, Geers AE. 2011; Measures of digit span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after more than 10 years of cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 32 (01) (Suppl) 60S-74S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Postma A. 2000; Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models. Cognition 77 (02) 97-132
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Putnam AL, Ozubko JD, Macleod CM, Roediger 3rd HL. 2014; The production effect in paired-associate learning: benefits for item and associative information. Mem Cognit 42 (03) 409-420
  Google Scholar
• Schneider BA, Pichora-Fuller MK. 2000. Implications of perceptual deterioration for cognitive aging research. In: Craik FIM, Salthouse TA. Handbook of Aging and Cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 155-219
  Google Scholar
• Svirsky MA, Robbins AM, Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Miyamoto RT. 2000; Language development in profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychol Sci 11 (02) 153-158
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tait M, Nikolopoulos TP, De Raeve L, Johnson S, Datta G, Karltorp E, Ostlund E, Johansson U, van Knegsel E, Mylanus EA, Gulpen PM, Beers M, Frijns JH. 2010; Bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implantation in young children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 74 (02) 206-211
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taitelbaum-Swead R, Kishon-Rabin L, Kaplan-Neeman R, Muchnik C, Kronenberg J, Hildesheimer M. 2005; Speech perception of children using Nucleus, Clarion or Med-El cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 69 (12) 1675-1683
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson BS. 2015; Getting a decent (but sparse) signal to the brain for users of cochlear implants. Hear Res 322: 24-38
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar