Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Feb 24.
Published in final edited form as: Otol Neurotol. 2018 Dec;39(10):e1010–e1018. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002052

TABLE 6.

Pearson correlation analyses for cochlear implant (CI) candidates between best-aided preoperative sentence recognition scores and neurocognitive scores

Sentence Recognition
AzBio in Quiet (% Key Words Correct) (N = 31) AzBio in Babble (% Key Words Correct) (N = 16) CUNY (% Words Correct) (N = 31)
r Value (95% Confidence Interval) r Value (95% Confidence Interval) r value (95% Confidence Interval)
Neurocognitive Measures
 Digit span (items correct) 0.31 (−0.05 to 0.59) 0.78* (0.45 to 0.92) 0.38** (0.03 to 0.64)
 Object span (items correct) −0.02 (−0.37 to 0.33) 0.41 (−0.10 to 0.74) 0.10 (−0.26 to 0.43)
 Symbol span (items correct) 0.10 (−0.26 to 0.43) −0.01 (−0.49 to 0.48) 0.25 (−0.11 to 0.55)
 Stroop control-congruent composite (ms) 0.10 (−0.26 to 0.43) 0.11 (−0.40 to 0.56) −0.04 (−0.38 to 0.31)
 Stroop incongruent (ms) 0.07 (−0.29 to 0.41) −0.26 (−0.66 to 0.26) −0.19 (−0.50 to 0.17)
 TOWRE words (% correct) 0.10 (−0.26 to 0.43) −0.15 (−0.59 to 0.36) 0.08 (−0.28 to 0.42)
 TOWRE nonwords (% correct) 0.11 (−0.25 to 0.44) 0.27 (−0.25 to 0.66) 0.22 (−0.14 to 0.53)
 Raven’s (items correct) 0.27 (−0.09 to 0.56) 0.30 (−0.22 to 0.68) 0.39** (0.04 to 0.65)
*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

ms indicates millisecond; TOWRE, Test of Word Reading Efficiency.