Impact of cognition and noise reduction on speech perception in adults with unilateral cochlear implants

Suzanne Carolyn Purdy*, David Welch, Ellen Giles, Catherine Louise Anne Morgan, Renique Tenhagen, Abin Kuruvilla-Mathew

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)


Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of cognition and noise reduction (NR) technology in cochlear implants (CIs) on speech perception and listening effort. Methods: Thirteen adults fitted with unilateral CIs (Nucleus® 6, CP900) participated in this study. Participants performed: (I) cognitive tests of working memory and processing speed, (II) speech perception in noise tests, and (III) an auditory–visual dual-task paradigm to quantify listening effort, as a part of the three-phase experimental study. Both the participant and the tester, performing the outcome measures, were blinded to the NR settings (ON/OFF) of the CI for phases II and III. Results: Speech intelligibility significantly improved with the NR activated, but was independent of individual differences in cognitive abilities. Listening effort did not significantly change with NR setting; however, there was a trend for participants with good working memory to have better speech perception scores with NR activated during the effortful listening task (dual-task paradigm). Conclusion: Future studies are warranted to explore the interaction between cognition and CI NR algorithms during an effortful listening task.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)162-170
Number of pages9
JournalCochlear implants international
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 4 May 2017
Externally publishedYes


  • cochlear implant
  • speech perception
  • cognition
  • noise reduction
  • dual task
  • listening effort
  • working memory


Dive into the research topics of 'Impact of cognition and noise reduction on speech perception in adults with unilateral cochlear implants'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this