"The Influence of Neurocognitive Factors on Speech Perception Outcomes after Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Scoping Review Protocol"
Creators: name: Beckers, Loes
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Cognitive Neuroscience
subject: Speech Pathology and Audiology
subject: Medicine and Health Sciences
subject: Life Sciences
subject: Communication Sciences and Disorders
subject: Neuroscience and Neurobiology
subject: Cognition and Perception
subject: Mental and Social Health
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology
subject: Adult
subject: Cochlear implant
subject: Cognition
subject: Neurocognitive
subject: Postlingually
subject: Speech perception

description: Loes Beckers (1,2), Nikki Tromp (1,2), Birgit Philips (1), Wendy Huinck (2) &amp; Emmanuel Mylanus (2) Cochlear Technology Centre Belgium (1) &amp; Radboud university medical center, Donders institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour (2) Introduction Rationale Cochlear implants are the current treatment for patients with severe to profound bilateral hearing loss. However, the speech perception outcomes of this treatment are highly variable among adults. Different biological and audiological factors, for example, residual hearing before implantation and the duration of hearing loss contribute to a small extent to explaining this variation (Zhao et. al., 2020). In addition to these variables, top-down neurocognitive factors have been proposed to contribute to variation in postoperative speech perception. The interactions of top-down processes with the incoming speech signal have been shown to be highly important for distorted speech recognition. Since listening through a CI leads to a distorted speech signal, top-down neurocognitive mechanisms are needed for active and effortful decoding of speech. These neurocognitive mechanisms are thought to enable CI listeners to compensate for the loss of spectro-temporal resolution (Moberly et. al., 2016). Studies investigating the influence of neurocognitive factors on CI performance do not only use varying designs and methods but also observe varying results. Furthermore, a preliminary search for existing reviews in PROSPERO and PubMed (June 2020) has shown that these studies have not been collected and evaluated in a review to date. Therefore, discussing and summarising this rather wide variety of studies in a systematic scoping review might give new insights and can be used to guide new research on this topic. Research in this field is particularly important to improve treatment for poorly performing adult CI users. Objective The main objective of this systematic scoping review will be to gain understanding of the extent to which top-down neurocognitive factors influence speech perception outcomes in hearing-impaired adults after cochlear implantation. In the DSM-5 six key neurocognitive domains are defined; executive function, complex attention, perceptual-motor function, language, learning and memory and social cognition (Sachdev et. al., 2014). In order to give a complete overview, each of these neurocognitive domains will be covered during the literature search. Methods Eligibility criteria Studies investigating the influence of one or more of the neurocognitive factors on speech perception after CI implantation will be included in this systematic review. There will be no restrictions on the type of speech perception measure. Therefore, speech perception tests consisting of both word and sentence tests in both quiet, noise or both will be considered. Suitable study designs are cross-sectional studies, non-randomised control trials, quasi-experimental studies, longitudinal studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies and meta-analysis done in clinical setting. Furthermore, all studies in children and adults with pre-lingual onset of deafness will be excluded. There will be no restrictions on publication status or language of publication. Data sources and search strategy Pubmed, Embase, PsychInfo and Web of science will be used as databases for this review. In addition, bioRxiv and medRxiv will be used to search for any preprints. Systematic searches will be conducted up to July 2020 and assisted by a trained librarian. Terms and their synonyms related to the outcomes, predictive factors based on the DSM-5 key neurocognitive domains and patient population will be included in a search strategy. Thesaurus like MeSH and Emtree will be used in addition to free-text terms in titles and abstracts. An example of a search strategy in PubMed can be found in Appendix A. Furthermore, the reference lists of articles and conference abstracts will be scanned for additional suitable studies. Study selection. The results of all databases will be merged and duplicates will be removed using Rayyan QCRI systematics review app and Endnote. Two review authors (L.B. &amp; N.T.) will blindly select relevant studies by screening titles and abstracts based on the eligibility criteria in the same app. The authors will independently assess the full versions of these potentially relevant studies for inclusion. In case it is unclear from the title and abstract if an article should be included, the decision will be made based on full text. Data extraction and management. A predefined form will be used to extract the data from each study. The form will include study design, participant details, eligibility criteria, hearing device details, speech perception measurement details, cognitive measurement details, relation between cognitive measurement and outcome, analysis method, limitations and possible biases and the conclusion of the author. The form will be piloted beforehand to determine if these fields are sufficient and clear. Furthermore, the data will be summarised in a table to give a clear overview (see Table 1.). Data synthesis. In case study designs of the different neurocognitive factors are homogenous enough, data will be collected to perform a meta-analysis. The retrieved data will be collected in a reference manager called RevMan 5 if the meta-analysis will be performed. References Moberly, A. C., Bates, C., Harris, M. S., &amp; Pisoni, D. B. (2016). The Enigma of Poor Performance by Adults With Cochlear Implants. Otology &amp; neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology, 37(10), 1522–1528. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001211 Sachdev, P., Blacker, D., Blazer, D., Ganguli, M., Jeste, D., Paulsen, J.,&amp; Petersen, R. (2014). Classifying neurocognitive disorders: the DSM-5 approach. Nature reviews neurology, 10, 634-642. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.181 Zhao, E. E., Dornhoffer, J. R., Loftus, C., Nguyen, S. A., Meyer, T. A., Dubno, J. R., &amp; McRackan, T. R. (2020). Association of patient-related factors with adult cochlear implant speech recognition outcomes: a meta-analysis. Jama Otolaryngology-- Head &amp; Neck Surgery, 2020 May 14. Doi:https://doiorg.ru.idm.oclc.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2020.0662 Appendix A Example of search strings for PubMed: ((Cochlear implants [MeSH] OR Cochlear implantation [MeSH] OR Cochlear implant* [tiab] OR Cochlear prosthes* [tiab] OR Auditory prosthes*[tiab]) OR ((Hearing Aids [MeSH] OR Hearing aid* [tiab]) AND (severe [tiab] OR profound [tiab]))) AND (Adult* [tiab] OR postlingual* [tiab] NOT(Child[MeSH] NOT Adult [MeSH])) AND (Auditory perception [MeSH] OR Hearing [MeSH] OR Speech perception [tiab] OR Auditory perception* [tiab] OR Hearing [tiab] OR Audition [tiab] OR Speech discrimination [tiab] OR Speech recognition [tiab] OR Speech intelligibility [tiab] OR speech-in-noise performance [tiab] OR auditory performance [tiab] OR Word recognition [tiab] OR Speech reception [tiab] OR Sentence recognition [tiab] OR Listening Effort [tiab] OR Speech processing [tiab] OR Speech understanding [tiab] OR Speech outcomes [tiab] OR speech performance [tiab] OR CVC words [tiab] OR phoneme discrimination [tiab]) AND (Cognition [MeSH] OR Cognition* [tiab] OR Cognitive function* [tiab] OR Cognitive predictor* [tiab] OR Neurocognit* [tiab] OR Cognitive impairment* [tiab] OR Cognitive Abilities [tiab] OR Cognitive processing [tiab] OR Cognitive skills [tiab] OR Cognitive performance [tiab] OR Top-down processing [tiab] OR Cognitive factors [tiab] OR Executive function [MeSH] OR Strategic planning [MeSH] OR Decision making [MeSH] OR Memory, Short-term [MeSH] OR Inhibition, Psychological [MeSH] OR Feedback [MeSH] OR Feedback, sensory [MeSH] OR Reactive inhibition [MeSH] OR Executive function* [tiab] OR Executive control*[tiab] OR Strategic planning [tiab] OR Decision making [tiab] OR Working memor* [tiab] OR Short-term memor* [tiab] OR Shortterm memor* [tiab] OR Immediate recall* [tiab] OR Immediate memor* [tiab] OR Inhibition* [tiab] OR inhibitory control [tiab] OR Nonverbal reasoning [tiab] OR Reactive Inhibition [tiab] OR Attention [MeSH] OR Attention [tiab] OR Processing speed [tiab] OR Psychomotor performance [MeSH] OR Visual perception [MeSH] OR Psychomotor performance* [tiab] OR Visual motor coordination*[tiab] OR Perceptual motor performance*[tiab] OR Sensory motor performance* [tiab] OR Visual perception*[tiab] OR Perceptual motor function* [tiab] OR Visuoconstructional reasoning [tiab] OR Perceptual motor coordination [tiab] OR Linguistics [MeSH] OR Linguistic* [tiab] OR Context* [tiab] OR Object naming [tiab] OR Word finding [tiab] OR Learning [MeSH] OR Memory [MeSH] OR Mental recall [MeSH] OR Memory, long-term [MeSH] OR Recognition, Psychology [MeSH] OR Learning [tiab] OR Memory [tiab] OR recall [tiab] OR Long term memor* [tiab] OR Remote memor* [tiab] OR Recognition [tiab] OR Plasticity [tiab] OR Theory of mind [MeSH] OR Theory of mind [tiab] OR social perception [tiab] OR emotion recognition [tiab])