Effect of Two Approaches to Auditory Training on Speech Recognition by Hearing-Impaired Adults

Abstract

Twenty adults with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing impairments were given three tests of speech recognition: the CUNY Nonsense Syllable Test (NST), the low predictability items of the Revised Speech Perception in Noise (RSPIN) test, and the high predictability items of the RSPIN test. They were tested on four occasions: (a) at the beginning of the study, (b) after one month of "no treatment," (c) after a month of intensive auditory training, and (d) after a further month of "no treatment." During the treatment period, 10 of the subjects spent all of the time on activities involving sentence perception and perceptual strategy while the other 10 spent half of the time on activities involving consonant recognition. A small, but statistically significant increase in speech recognition performance on the high probability material was observed in both groups subsequent to training, but the effect of training method was not significant. In addition, the gains achieved were not lost in the month following the end of training. The findings suggest that the benefits of auditory training were found in an increased use of sentence context as an aid to word recognition.

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

“…All used some form of speech recognition measure in noise (syllable or sentence) but some used open and closed-set response formats whilst others used commercially available measuring tools such as the CUNY NDT test (City University of New York Nonsense Syllable Test) (Rubinstein & Boothroyd, 1987). Despite the difference in methods, all studies aimed to use the measures to expose change in baseline performance between pre and post-training scores.…”

“…Two studies compared analytic and synthetic approaches (Kricos and Holmes, 1996;Rubinstein and Boothroyd, 1987) whilst the others investigated a version of analytic training or a combination of the two. The training stimuli used in the studies were presented to participants either via a computer-based package at home or in clinic (2 studies used this format), tape-recorded materials presented in a laboratory setting (2 studies), or live voice presentation of training material (1 study).…”

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

Treinamento auditivo formal em idosos usuários de próteses auditivas

“…There is some evidence that formal hearing training can be efficient in the hearing challenged elderly with sensorineural hearing loss as the one found in most of the people in this age range [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] .…”