A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis of the Relations Between Cognition and Cochlear Implant Outcomes and the Effect of Quiet Versus Noise Testing Conditions.

Abstract

Objectives: Evidence continues to emerge of associations between cochlear implant (CI) outcomes and cognitive functions in postlingually deafened adults. While there are multiple factors that appear to affect these associations, the impact of speech recognition background testing conditions (i.e., in quiet versus noise) has not been systematically explored. The two aims of this study were to (1) identify associations between speech recognition following cochlear implantation and performance on cognitive tasks, and to (2) investigate the impact of speech testing in quiet versus noise on these associations. Ultimately, we want to understand the conditions that impact this complex relationship between CI outcomes and cognition.

Design: A scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed on published literature evaluating the relation between outcomes of cochlear implantation and cognition. The current review evaluates 39 papers that reported associations between over 30 cognitive assessments and speech recognition tests in adult patients with CIs. Six cognitive domains were evaluated: Global Cognition, Inhibition-Concentration, Memory and Learning, Controlled Fluency, Verbal Fluency, and Visuospatial Organization. Meta-analysis was conducted on three cognitive assessments among 12 studies to evaluate relations with speech recognition outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify whether speech recognition testing in quiet versus in background noise impacted its association with cognitive performance.

Results: Significant associations between cognition and speech recognition in a background of quiet or noise were found in 69% of studies. Tests of Global Cognition and Inhibition-Concentration skills resulted in the highest overall frequency of significant associations with speech recognition (45% and 57%, respectively). Despite the modest proportion of significant associations reported, pooling effect sizes across samples through meta-analysis revealed a moderate positive correlation between tests of Global Cognition ( r = +0.37, p < 0.01) as well as Verbal Fluency ( r = +0.44, p < 0.01) and postoperative speech recognition skills. Tests of Memory and Learning are most frequently utilized in the setting of CI (in 26 of 39 included studies), yet meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant associations with speech recognition performance in a background of quiet ( r = +0.30, p = 0.18), and noise ( r = -0.06, p = 0.78).

Conclusions: Background conditions of speech recognition testing may influence the relation between speech recognition outcomes and cognition. The magnitude of this effect of testing conditions on this relationship appears to vary depending on the cognitive construct being assessed. Overall, Global Cognition and Inhibition-Concentration skills are potentially useful in explaining speech recognition skills following cochlear implantation. Future work should continue to evaluate these relations to appropriately unify cognitive testing opportunities in the setting of cochlear implantation.