Auditory Training and Speech Discrimination

Abstract

Thirty-two adults with sensorineural hearing loss participated in a short-term auditory training program. The listeners were assigned to one of four matched groups which were equivalent in pure-tone sensitivity, speech-reception threshold, PB discrimination in quiet and in noise, intelligence, age, education, duration of loss, sex, and hearing-aid use. Each group responded during training to a different combination of listening condition (S/N varied or S/N-constant) and speech material (closed-set or open-set response formats). Statistically significant increase in auditory discrimination was shown on the W-22 and Rhyme tests, while the increase revealed by the Semi-Diagnostic test was not significant. Results indicated that the two listening conditions were equally effective. Similarly, the two types of training material brought about equivalent increases in overall speech discrimination. Trends suggested that open-set and closed-set training each had most effect on the respective type of speech discrimination. In addition, improvement in auditory discrimination was associated with those individuals who were oldest, with those who had highest intelligence, and with those who responded to training material at the most intense presentation level. Finally, listeners who reported the most hearing handicap also tended to show the greatest loss in speech reception and in speech discrimination in noise.

Auditory Training and Adult Rehabilitation: A Critical Review of the Evidence

“…All studies included 'older listeners' of an average age range of 50-80 years apart from Bode and Oyer (1970) who used a younger demographic with ages from 21-60 years (median of 44 years old). The degree of SNHL was mild-moderate as determined by pure tone audiometry threshold and all participants had sloping high frequency SNHL typical of presbyacusis.…”

“…Three of the studies appraised were RCTs and three were before/after effect trials with no controls. Three of the studies used were also selected by the present review for more detailed analysis: Bode and Oyer (1970), Rubinstein and Boothroyd (1987) and Kricos and Holmes (1996). Systematic reviews can provide the highest level of evidence but still need assessing for quality to determine whether the results of the review are valid.…”

“…Bode and Oyer (1970) examined the effect of 4 variations of AT paradigm (speech in noise varied or constant and open or closed-set response format) in 32 adults with mild SNHL over a 1 day training programme with no follow-up. Three speech recognition tests were used to examine treatment effect: (1) W-22 test where the participant is required to repeat verbally the word they heard in background noise (2) Rhyme test which required a written response from lists of word stems (e.g.…”

“…Variables used by Bode and Oyer (1970) and Rubinstein and Boothroyd (1987) included patient age, intelligence, duration of hearing loss, average pure-tone thresholds and duration of hearing aid use. Although this controlled matching of cases is not as strong at eliminating bias as a blinded RCT design, this process does limit within and between group variability and therefore reduces the effect of confounding factors on results.…”

“…Both the Bode and Oyer (1970) and Burk and Humes (2008) studies used t-tests to calculate significant differences between the pre and post-training scores. Bode and Oyer described the statistical analysis in detail and used a larger sample size to obtain significant results whereas Burk and Humes only provide a sparse description of data handling and used a small sample of 8 subjects.…”