普通话成年助听器与人工耳蜗使用者的情绪词汇加工：语义、韵律与面部线索的交互作用

文献信息

中文摘要

目的： 情绪言语的加工需要对话义、韵律和面部线索的感知与整合。虽然助听器（HAs）和人工耳蜗（CIs）能提供显著的听觉增强，但它们在传达情绪韵律方面存在局限，可能影响使用者通过听觉和视觉两种模态识别情绪的能力。本研究旨在比较助听器使用者、人工耳蜗使用者与听力正常个体从不同通道解码情绪的表现，并评估其通道偏好。
设计： 采用强制选择视听Stroop范式，我们招募了23名助听器使用者、18名人工耳蜗使用者和21名听力正常个体，完成3项通道特异性任务：语义任务、韵律任务和面部任务。每项任务均按任务要求设计为从特定通道提取情绪相关信息。
结果： 与听力正常个体相比，两个听力受损组（人工耳蜗使用者和助听器使用者）的韵律判断能力均显著受损。此外，在多模态加工过程中，人工耳蜗组在面部任务上未显示出统计学上可检测的跨通道干扰，而在助听器组中，语义不一致与所有三项任务（包括语义与任务无关的任务）中较低的表现相关。
结论： 听力受损个体的韵律判断受损可能源于听觉加工缺陷，导致其表现差于听力正常的同龄人。两组表现出不同的跨通道干扰探索性模式：在人工耳蜗组中，面部任务未显示出统计学上可检测的干扰，而在助听器组中，即使语义与任务无关，语义不一致仍与较低表现相关。这些模式可能与设备相关的听觉和视觉情绪线索获取差异相一致，我们在跨通道可塑性框架内将其解释为未来研究的假设。这些发现支持针对特定感知策略的个体化言语治疗，从而增强针对性康复。

英文摘要

OBJECTIVES: The processing of emotional speech requires the perception and integration of semantics, prosody, and facial cues. While hearing aids (HAs) and cochlear implants (CIs) provide significant auditory enhancements, they are limited in conveying emotional prosody, potentially affecting users' ability to recognize emotions through both auditory and visual modalities. This study aims to compare the performance of HA users, CI users, and individuals with normal hearing in decoding emotions from various channels and to assess their channel preferences.
DESIGN: Using a forced-choice audiovisual Stroop paradigm, we recruited 23 HA users, 18 CI users, and 21 individuals with normal hearing to complete 3 channel-specific tasks: a semantics task, a prosody task, and a face task. Each task was designed to extract emotion-related information from a specific channel in accordance with the task's requirements.
RESULTS: The prosody-judgment abilities of both hearing-impaired groups (CI users and HA users) were significantly impaired compared with individuals with normal hearing. In addition, during multimodal processing, the CI group showed no statistically detectable cross-channel interference on the face task, whereas in the HA group, semantic inconsistency was associated with lower performance across all three tasks, including tasks in which semantics was task-irrelevant.
CONCLUSIONS: Impaired prosody judgment in hearing-impaired individuals likely stems from auditory processing deficits, leading to poorer performance than their normal-hearing peers. The two groups showed different exploratory patterns of cross-channel interference: in the CI group, the face task showed no statistically detectable interference, whereas in the HA group, semantic inconsistency was associated with lower performance even when semantics was task-irrelevant. These patterns are potentially consistent with device-related differences in access to auditory and visual emotion cues, and we interpret them within a cross-channel plasticity framework as hypotheses for future study. These findings support individualized speech therapy tailored to specific perceptual strategies, enhancing targeted rehabilitation.