Consonant and vowel confusions in well-performing adult cochlear implant users, measured with a nonsense syllable repetition test.

OBJECTIVE: The study's objective was to identify consonant and vowel confusions in cochlear implant (CI) users, using a nonsense syllable repetition test. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, participants repeated recorded mono- and bisyllabic nonsense words and real-word monosyllables in an open-set design. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-eight Norwegian-speaking, well-performing adult CI users (13 unilateral and 15 bilateral), using implants from Cochlear, Med-El and Advanced Bionics, and a reference group of 20 listeners with normal hearing participated. RESULTS: For the CI users, consonants were confused more often than vowels (58% versus 71% correct). Voiced consonants were confused more often than unvoiced (54% versus 64% correct). Voiced stops were often repeated as unvoiced, whereas unvoiced stops were never repeated as voiced. The nasals were repeated correctly in one third of the cases and confused with other nasals in one third of the cases. The real-word monosyllable score was significantly higher than the nonsense syllable score (76% versus 63% correct). CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed a general devoicing bias for the stops and a high confusion rate of nasals with other nasals, which suggests that the low-frequency coding in CIs is insufficient. Furthermore, the nonsense syllable test exposed more perception errors than the real word test.

Auditive training effects from a dichotic listening app in children with dyslexia.

Dichotic listening (DL) taps information on the brain's language laterality, processing, and attention. Research has shown that DL responses in dyslexia deviate from the typical pattern. Here, effects of DL training and its correspondence to rapid naming (RAN) and digit span (DS) in typical children and children with dyslexia were assessed. Three groups of third graders participated: two training groups, control training (CT) and dyslexia training (DT), and a control group that received no training (control no training, CnT). All took part in testing pretraining and posttraining. DL measures were on laterality, response scores, and attention. The three groups showed different response patterns: minor changes in CnT, change in all measures in CT, and some changes in DT. RAN and DS scores correlated significantly with some of the DL measures, especially with the attention scores. Our findings support arguments that brain architecture for language in dyslexia is lateralised in the same way as in children without dyslexia. However, the ability to modulate attention during DL is weaker in dyslexia than in typically developing children. A training-induced normalisation of lateralisation was observed in free recall in the dyslexia group, which suggests that DL training may be a promising intervention approach.