Rødvik Arne Kirkhorn, von Koss Torkildsen Janne, Wie Ona Bø, Storaker Marit Aarvaag, Silvola Juha Tapio
Department of Special Needs Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital, Norway.
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018 Apr 17;61(4):1023-1050. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-16-0463.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish a baseline of the vowel and consonant identification scores in prelingually and postlingually deaf users of multichannel cochlear implants (CIs) tested with consonant-vowel-consonant and vowel-consonant-vowel nonsense syllables.
Six electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles reporting consonant and vowel identification scores in CI users measured by nonsense words. Relevant studies were independently assessed and screened by 2 reviewers. Consonant and vowel identification scores were presented in forest plots and compared between studies in a meta-analysis.
Forty-seven articles with 50 studies, including 647 participants, thereof 581 postlingually deaf and 66 prelingually deaf, met the inclusion criteria of this study. The mean performance on vowel identification tasks for the postlingually deaf CI users was 76.8% (N = 5), which was higher than the mean performance for the prelingually deaf CI users (67.7%; N = 1). The mean performance on consonant identification tasks for the postlingually deaf CI users was higher (58.4%; N = 44) than for the prelingually deaf CI users (46.7%; N = 6). The most common consonant confusions were found between those with same manner of articulation (/k/ as /t/, /m/ as /n/, and /p/ as /t/).
The mean performance on consonant identification tasks for the prelingually and postlingually deaf CI users was found. There were no statistically significant differences between the scores for prelingually and postlingually deaf CI users. The consonants that were incorrectly identified were typically confused with other consonants with the same acoustic properties, namely, voicing, duration, nasality, and silent gaps. A univariate metaregression model, although not statistically significant, indicated that duration of implant use in postlingually deaf adults predict a substantial portion of their consonant identification ability. As there is no ceiling effect, a nonsense syllable identification test may be a useful addition to the standard test battery in audiology clinics when assessing the speech perception of CI users.
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是建立一个基线，以了解使用辅音-元音-辅音和元音-辅音-元音无意义音节测试的多通道人工耳蜗（CI）使用者在语前聋和语后聋状态下的元音和辅音识别分数。
检索了六个电子数据库，以查找通过无意义单词测量CI使用者辅音和元音识别分数的同行评审文章。相关研究由两名评审员独立评估和筛选。在森林图中呈现辅音和元音识别分数，并在荟萃分析中对各研究进行比较。
47篇文章包含50项研究，共647名参与者，其中581名语后聋患者和66名语前聋患者，符合本研究的纳入标准。语后聋CI使用者在元音识别任务上的平均表现为76.8%（N = 5），高于语前聋CI使用者的平均表现（67.7%；N = 1）。语后聋CI使用者在辅音识别任务上的平均表现（58.4%；N = 44）高于语前聋CI使用者（46.7%；N = 6）。最常见的辅音混淆出现在发音方式相同的辅音之间（/k/与/t/、/m/与/n/、/p/与/t/）。
得出了语前聋和语后聋CI使用者在辅音识别任务上的平均表现。语前聋和语后聋CI使用者的分数之间没有统计学上的显著差异。被错误识别的辅音通常与具有相同声学特性的其他辅音混淆，即浊音、持续时间、鼻音和静音间隙。单变量元回归模型虽然没有统计学意义，但表明语后聋成年人的植入物使用时间在很大程度上预测了他们的辅音识别能力。由于不存在天花板效应，在评估CI使用者的言语感知时，无意义音节识别测试可能是听力诊所标准测试组合中一个有用的补充。
