Department of Communication Disorders, Speech Perception and Listening Effort Lab in the name of Prof. Mordechai Himelfarb, Ariel University, Israel.
Meuhedet Health Services, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Ear Hear. 2024;45(6):1585-1599. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001550. Epub 2024 Jul 15.
Cochlear implants (CI) are remarkably effective, but have limitations regarding the transformation of the spectro-temporal fine structures of speech. This may impair processing of spoken emotions, which involves the identification and integration of semantic and prosodic cues. Our previous study found spoken-emotions-processing differences between CI users with postlingual deafness (postlingual CI) and normal hearing (NH) matched controls (age range, 19 to 65 years). Postlingual CI users over-relied on semantic information in incongruent trials (prosody and semantics present different emotions), but rated congruent trials (same emotion) similarly to controls. Postlingual CI's intact early auditory experience may explain this pattern of results. The present study examined whether CI users without intact early auditory experience (prelingual CI) would generally perform worse on spoken emotion processing than NH and postlingual CI users, and whether CI use would affect prosodic processing in both CI groups. First, we compared prelingual CI users with their NH controls. Second, we compared the results of the present study to our previous study ( Taitlebaum-Swead et al. 2022 ; postlingual CI).
Fifteen prelingual CI users and 15 NH controls (age range, 18 to 31 years) listened to spoken sentences composed of different combinations (congruent and incongruent) of three discrete emotions (anger, happiness, sadness) and neutrality (performance baseline), presented in prosodic and semantic channels (Test for Rating of Emotions in Speech paradigm). Listeners were asked to rate (six-point scale) the extent to which each of the predefined emotions was conveyed by the sentence as a whole (integration of prosody and semantics), or to focus only on one channel (rating the target emotion [RTE]) and ignore the other (selective attention). In addition, all participants performed standard tests of speech perception. Performance on the Test for Rating of Emotions in Speech was compared with the previous study (postlingual CI).
When asked to focus on one channel, semantics or prosody, both CI groups showed a decrease in prosodic RTE (compared with controls), but only the prelingual CI group showed a decrease in semantic RTE. When the task called for channel integration, both groups of CI users used semantic emotional information to a greater extent than their NH controls. Both groups of CI users rated sentences that did not present the target emotion higher than their NH controls, indicating some degree of confusion. However, only the prelingual CI group rated congruent sentences lower than their NH controls, suggesting reduced accumulation of information across channels. For prelingual CI users, individual differences in identification of monosyllabic words were significantly related to semantic identification and semantic-prosodic integration.
Taken together with our previous study, we found that the degradation of acoustic information by the CI impairs the processing of prosodic emotions, in both CI user groups. This distortion appears to lead CI users to over-rely on the semantic information when asked to integrate across channels. Early intact auditory exposure among CI users was found to be necessary for the effective identification of semantic emotions, as well as the accumulation of emotional information across the two channels. Results suggest that interventions for spoken-emotion processing should not ignore the onset of hearing loss.
人工耳蜗(CI)的效果非常显著,但在转换言语的频谱-时变精细结构方面存在局限性。这可能会损害对言语情绪的处理,而言语情绪处理涉及语义和韵律线索的识别和整合。我们之前的研究发现,后天失聪(后天性 CI)和正常听力(NH)匹配对照组(年龄范围 19 至 65 岁)的 CI 用户在言语情绪处理方面存在差异。后天性 CI 用户在不一致的试验中过度依赖语义信息(韵律和语义呈现不同的情绪),但对一致的试验(相同的情绪)的评分与对照组相似。后天性 CI 完整的早期听觉体验可以解释这种结果模式。本研究考察了没有完整早期听觉体验的 CI 用户(先天性 CI)在言语情绪处理方面是否普遍比 NH 和后天性 CI 用户表现更差,以及 CI 使用是否会影响两个 CI 组的韵律处理。首先,我们比较了先天性 CI 用户与其 NH 对照组。其次,我们将本研究的结果与我们之前的研究(Taitlebaum-Swead 等人,2022 年;后天性 CI)进行了比较。
15 名先天性 CI 用户和 15 名 NH 对照组(年龄范围 18 至 31 岁)听取了由不同离散情绪(愤怒、快乐、悲伤)和中性(性能基线)组成的言语句子,以韵律和语义通道呈现(言语情绪评价测试范式)。要求听众用六点量表(从完全传达到完全不传达)评价句子整体传达的情绪程度(韵律和语义的整合),或者只关注一个通道(评价目标情绪[RTE])并忽略另一个通道(选择性注意)。此外,所有参与者都进行了言语感知的标准测试。言语情绪评价测试的表现与之前的研究(后天性 CI)进行了比较。
当要求关注一个通道,即语义或韵律时,两个 CI 组的韵律 RTE 都下降(与对照组相比),但只有先天性 CI 组的语义 RTE 下降。当任务要求整合通道时,两个 CI 用户组都比他们的 NH 对照组更多地使用语义情感信息。两个 CI 用户组对未呈现目标情绪的句子的评分都高于他们的 NH 对照组,表明存在一定程度的混淆。然而,只有先天性 CI 组对一致的句子评分低于他们的 NH 对照组,这表明信息在通道之间的积累减少。对于先天性 CI 用户,单音节词识别的个体差异与语义识别和语义韵律整合显著相关。
综上所述,我们发现 CI 对声音信息的降解会损害两个 CI 用户组对韵律情绪的处理。这种扭曲似乎导致 CI 用户在要求跨通道整合时过度依赖语义信息。CI 用户的早期完整听觉暴露被发现对于有效识别语义情绪以及跨两个通道积累情感信息是必要的。结果表明,言语情绪处理的干预措施不应忽视听力损失的发生。