Objectives: This cross-sectional study evaluates emotional prosody recognition in adults with unilateral cochlear implants (UCI, n = 22), bilateral cochlear implants (BCI, n = 15), and typical hearing, defined as normal hearing sensitivity confirmed by standard audiometric assessment (TH, n = 21), using the Montreal Affective Voices (MAV). Secondary aims assess demographic and clinical factors influencing performance. Materials and Methods: Participants underwent audiological testing (PTA5, speech-in-noise at SNR +5 dB), cognitive screening (MoCA), visual emotion recognition, and MAV assessment for emotion identification (happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, pleasure, pain, disgust, neutral), and subjective valence ratings. Mean age ± SD was 56.2 ± 8.1 years in UCI participants, 46.1 ± 19.7 years in BCI participants, and 35.5 ± 11.5 years in TH participants. Group comparisons were performed using non-parametric tests (Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U), and multivariable linear regression models adjusted for study group, age, and education, with corresponding visual emotion-recognition scores and speech-in-noise performance at +5 dB SNR evaluated as additional covariates. Results: Both CI groups showed profound deficits in auditory emotion recognition (unadjusted total scores: UCI 30.4 ± 10.6, BCI 30.1 ± 8.7 vs. TH 61.9 ± 7.4; p < 0.001). After FDR correction, significant overall group effects were observed for eight of the nine emotion-specific outcomes; Sadness did not remain significant after correction. No Bonferroni-adjusted UCI-versus-BCI comparison was significant. Older age and lower education level were associated with poorer performance for selected outcomes. Visual emotion-recognition scores were positively associated with auditory performance for Anger and Neutral. Global cognition and disability (WHODAS 2.0) were comparable across groups. Conclusions: Cochlear implant users showed substantially poorer recognition of emotional prosody than typical-hearing participants, with no consistent statistically significant difference between unilateral and bilateral users. Technological improvements and targeted rehabilitation may help to enhance socioemotional communication in CI users.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: