Document Type : Original Articles


1 Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 Rehabilitation Sciences Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran


Background: The current study investigated lexical effects on the recognition
of spoken words in Persian-speaking children with hearing impairment using
Persian lexical neighborhood tests (PLNTs).
Methods: The research was administered as a cross-sectional study. PLNTs
were performed on thirty-three pediatric hearing aid (HAs) or cochlear implant
(CIs) users by sound field under spectrally degraded conditions. Thirteen 7-to-
13-year-old (8 boys and 5 girls) participants completed the experiments, which
were administered in a 3 × 4-m acoustic room using a sound field. The order of
the tests in each session was from the lowest to the highest signal-to-noise ratios
(SNRs), ranging from − 2 to 4 dB. The experiments were repeated by the same
examiners under the same conditions two months later with nine of the thirteen
Results: Pediatric users of HAs or CIs could not optimally recognize spoken
words in noise, specifically when they had to recognize words through an
auditory-only modality. There was a significant difference in the participants’
SWR performance on the PMLNT-easy versus the PMLNT-hard and the PDLNTeasy
versus the PDLNT-hard based on independent samples T test (p <0.001).
There was a significant difference in the participants’ SWR performance on the
PMLNT-easy versus the PDLNT-easy and the PMLNT-hard versus the PDLNThard
based on the independent samples T test as well (p <0.001). Accordingly,
word lexical difficulty (easy/hard words) and word length (monosyllabic/
disyllabic words) were the most fundamental factors having significant effects
on the recognition of spoken words in children with HAs or CIs in the test/
retest phases.
Conclusion: The PLNTs, as a valid assessment toolkit, can be reliably used to
measure SWR performance under spectrally degraded conditions in Persianspeaking
children with hearing impairment using HAs or CIs.


1. Kirk KI, Hudgins M. Speech Perception and Spoken Word Recognition in Children with Cochlear Implants. In: Young NM,Kirk KI, editors. Pediatric Cochlear Implantation. USA: Springer Nature; 2016. p. 145-61.
2. Holt RF, Lalonde K. Assessing toddlers’ speech-sound discrimination. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(5):680-92.
3. Kirk KI, Diefendorf AO, Pisoni DB, Robbins AM. Assessing speech perception in children. USA: Indiana University, 1995.
4. Davidson LS, Geers AE, Blamey PJ, Tobey EA, Brenner CA. Factors contributing to speech perception scores in longterm pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 2011;32(1Suppl):19s-26s.
5. van Wieringen A, Wouters J. What can we expect of normallydeveloping children implanted at a young age with respect to their auditory, linguistic and cognitive skills? Hear Res. 2015;322:171-9.
6. Gifford RH, Olund AP, DeJong M. Improving speech perception in noise for children with cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22(9):623-32.
7. Eisenberg LS, Fisher LM, Johnson KC, Ganguly DH, Grace T, Niparko JK, et al. Sentence Recognition in Quiet and Noise by Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users: Relationships to Spoken Language. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(2):e75-81.
8. Zaltz Y, Bugannim Y, Zechoval D, Kishon-Rabin L, Perez R. Listening in Noise Remains a Significant Challenge for Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence from Early Deafened and Those with Progressive Hearing Loss Compared to Peers with Normal Hearing. J Clin Med. 2020;9(5).
9. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Hasanzadeh S, Rahgozar M, Shemshadi H,Purdy SC, Bakhtiari BM, et al. Comparing the effect of auditoryonly and auditory-visual modes in two groups of Persian children using cochlear implants: a randomized clinical trial.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77(9):1545-50.
10. Luce PA, Pisoni DB. Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model. Ear Hear. 1998;19(1):1-36.
11. Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Osberger MJ. Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear.1995;16(5):470-81.
12. Kirk KI, Hay-McCutcheon M, Sehgal ST, Miyamoto RT. Speech perception in children with cochlear implants: effects of lexical difficulty, talker variability, and word length. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1998;185:79-81.
13. Kirk KI, Eisenberg LS, Martinez AS, Hay-McCutcheon M. The Lexical Neighborhood Test: Test-Retest Reliability and Inter-List Equivalency. Indiana: Indiana University, 1998.
14. Lachs L, Pisoni DB, Kirk KI. Use of Audiovisual Information in Speech Perception by Prelingually Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: A First Report. Ear Hear. 2001;22:236-51.
15. Eisenberg LS, Martinez AS, Holowecky SR, Pogorelsky S.Recognition of lexically controlled words and sentences by children with normal hearing and children with cochlear implants.Ear Hear. 2002;23(5):450-62.
16. Eisenberg LS, Johnson KC, Martinez AS, Cokely CG, Tobey EA,Quittner AL, et al. Speech recognition at 1-year follow-up in the childhood development after cochlear implantation study: Methods and preliminary findings. Audiol Neuro-Otol.2006;11(4):259-68.
17. Kirk KI, Hay-McCutcheon MJ, Holt RF, Gao S, Qi R, Gehrlein BL. Audiovisual Spoken Word Recognition by Children with Cochlear Implants. Audiol Med. 2007;5(4):250-61.
18. Tye-Murray N, Sommers M, Spehar B. Auditory and Visual Lexical Neighborhoods in Audiovisual Speech Perception. Trends Amplif. 2007;11:233-41.
19. Wang NY, Eisenberg LS, Johnson KC, Fink NE, Tobey EA,Quittner AL, et al. Tracking development of speech recognition:longitudinal data from hierarchical assessments in the Childhood Development after Cochlear Implantation Study. Otol Neurotol.2008;29(2):240-5.
20. Krull V, Choi S, Kirk KI, Prusick L, French B. Lexical effects on spoken word recognition in children with normal hearing Ear Hear. 2010;31(1):102-14.
21. Wang NM, Wu CM, Kirk KI. Lexical effects on spoken word recognition performance among Mandarin-speaking children with normal hearing and cochlear implants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74(8):883-90.
22. Holt RF, Kirk KI, Hay-McCutcheon M. Assessing multimodal spoken word-in-sentence recognition in children with normal hearing and children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(2):632-57.
23. Kirk KI, Prusick L, French B, Gotch C, Eisenberg LS, Young N. Assessing Spoken Word Recognition in Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: A Translational Approach. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012;23(6):464-75.
24. Lee Y, Sim H. Bilateral cochlear implantation versus unilateral cochlear implantation in deaf children: Effects of sentence context and listening conditions on recognition of spoken words in sentences. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.2020;137:110237.
25. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Zamani A. Development of Persian Lexical Neighborhood Tests. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.2020;139:110406.
26. Pisoni DB. Speech perception in deaf children with cochlear implants. In: Pisoni DB, Remez RE, editors. The Handbook of Speech Perception. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2009. p.494-523.
27. Liu H, Liu S, Kirk KI, Zhang J, Ge W, Zheng J, et al. Longitudinal performance of spoken word perception in Mandarin pediatric cochlear implant users. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.2015;79(10):1677-82.
28. Liu H, Liu S, Wang S, Liu C, Kong Y, Zhang N, et al. Effects of lexical characteristics and demographic factors on mandarin chinese open-set word recognition in children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2013;34(2):221-8.
29. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Vahab M, Bazrafkan M, Haghjoo A.Audiovisual spoken word recognition as a clinical criterion for sensory aids efficiency in Persian-language children with hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(12):2424-7.
30. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Vahab M, Rahimi Z, Mayahi A. Audiovisual sentence repetition as a clinical criterion for auditory development in Persian-language children with hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;93:167-71.
31. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Mohammadi T, Mohammadi Z, Vahab M. Predictive Factors of Language Development in Persianspeaking Children Using Cochlear Implants: A Pilot Study. JRSR.2021;8(3):126-31.
32. Luce PA. Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon Bloomington, USA: Indiana University, 1986 Contract No.: 6.
33. Cluff MS, Luce PA. Similarity neighborhoods of spoken twosyllable words: retroactive effects on multiple activation. J ExpPsychol Hum Percept Perform. 1990;16(3):551-63.