Task- and Talker-Specific Gains in Auditory Training

Abstract

The findings support applications of transfer-appropriate processing to auditory training and favor tailoring programs toward the specific needs of the individuals being trained for tasks, talkers, and perhaps, for stimuli, in addition to other factors.

Auditory Training for Adults Who Have Hearing Loss: A Comparison of Spaced Versus Massed Practice Schedules

“…Based on their recent meta-analysis, Henshaw and Ferguson (2013) suggested that the efficacy of computerized auditory training for adults is "not robust" and that there was a paucity of evidence-based studies to assess efficacy (see also Sweetow & Palmer, 2005). The present findings add to the growing amount of evidence that training can be effective and robust (e.g., Barcroft et al, 2011bBarcroft et al, , 2016Burk, Humes, Amos, & Strauser, 2006;Sweetow & Henderson-Sabes, 2006;Tye-Murray et al, 2016).…”

“…However, in light of previous findings in this area, training on the task is desirable, and hearing health care specialists should train patients to recognize the very speech stimuli and the very talkers that any given person with hearing loss desires. This approach is precisely like that taken in several recent studies (Barcroft et al, 2011b(Barcroft et al, , 2016, wherein we trained persons with hearing loss to discriminate the speech of their significant others (Tye-Murray et al, 2016) and achieved gains in a four-choice discrimination task of approximately 14% words correct. At issue here is how generalizability actually reflects the degree to which the component perceptual and cognitive processes engaged during training overlap with those that underlie the desired outcome when it comes to task, stimulus, and talker (see Barcroft et al, 2016).…”

“…In previous work, we adopted a general transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) perspective with regard to understanding the generalizability of benefits of auditory training wherein we posited that increased similarity in task, talker, and stimuli from training to assessment would produce increased gains (Barcroft et al, 2011b(Barcroft et al, , 2016. For example, Barcroft et al (2011bBarcroft et al ( , 2016 found that participants trained in a single-talker condition improved significantly more on a four-choice discrimination task when their posttraining test stimuli were spoken by the same talker with whom they had trained than when the stimuli were spoken by a different talker or multiple talkers. Such findings speak to the importance of degree of overlap between the component perceptual and cognitive processes engaged during training and what can be reasonably expected when it comes to generalizability per se: The greater the overlap, the greater the generalizability of benefit.…”

“…We considered two practice schedules that have been used in previous investigations: the use of 5 days per week to complete 16 hr of training (e.g., Fu et al, 2004;Oba et al, 2011;Stecker et al, 2006;Sweetow & Henderson-Sabes, 2006;Zhang et al, 2012) and the twice weekly schedule (e.g. Barcroft et al, 2011bBarcroft et al, , 2016, called hereinafter massed training and spaced training, respectively. We controlled for the amount of training received by participants in each training group, both in terms of time on task and exposure to number of training exercises.…”

Development Trends of Online-based Aural Rehabilitation Programs for Children with Cochlear Implant Coping with the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Implication in Speech-Language Pathology

“…9) have been developed and marketed in the US for ICTbased aural training [23,24]. However, they focus on enhancing the aural memory mainly using ambient sounds, not speech and do not support Korean, which are limitations [23,24]. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a cochlear implant hearing rehabilitation training program suitable for native Korean speakers.…”