Perceptual training improves syllable identification in new and experienced hearing aid users

Abstract

Abstract-We assessed the effects of perceptual training of syllable identification in noise on nonsense syllable test (NST) performance of new (Experiment 1) and experienced (Experiment 2) hearing aid (HA) users with sensorineural hearing loss. In Experiment 1, new HA users were randomly assigned to either immediate training (IT) or delayed training (DT) groups. IT subjects underwent 8 weeks of at-home syllable identification training and in-laboratory testing, whereas DT subjects underwent identical in-laboratory testing without training. Training produced large improvements in syllable identification in IT subjects, whereas spontaneous improvement was minimal in DT subjects. DT subjects then underwent training and showed performance improvements comparable with those of the IT group. Training-related improvement in NST scores significantly exceeded improvements due to amplification. In Experiment 2, experienced HA users received identical training and testing procedures as users in Experiment 1. The experienced users also showed significant training benefit. Trainingrelated improvements generalized to untrained voices and were maintained on retention tests. Perceptual training appears to be a promising tool for improving speech perception in new and experienced HA users.

Measuring consonant identification in nonsense syllables, words, and sentences

“…For example, Ferguson and KewleyPort found that patients with mild SNHL accurately identified 73 percent of vowels at speech-to-babble ratios of -3 dB, i.e., well below typical SeRTs [8]. As a result, improving consonant comprehension is a major focus of current research on hearing aid design [9][10][11] and adaptive perceptual training [12][13][14][15].…”

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

“…Stecker et al (2006) found that the performance of older participants on a nonsense syllable test was significantly poorer than younger participants but that the degree of improvement from pre to post-training was generally greater in the older group (although not statistically significant). These findings raise questions about the possible impact of patient age (and other factors) on amount of AT benefit and therefore needs addressing in future.…”

“…Some authors also use terms such as "listening training" (Tremblay et al, 1997) or "perceptual training" (Stecker et al, 2006;Woods & Yund, 2007) to describe a process of AT. Regardless of the terminology used, the listening tasks generally include lists of sentences, words or speech syllables presented in noise (background babble).…”

“…Whilst amplification can partially compensate for cochlear deficits by increasing sensory input, the actual process of repairing auditory processing pathways to aid speech perception is thought to require a different level of stimulation (Stecker et al, 2006;Neuman, 2005). The repeated and varied listening tasks of AT are argued to provide the stimulation required to promote 're-normalisation' of a deprived CAS and therefore should be used to rehabilitate these patients (Tremblay et al, 1997;Stecker et al, 2006;Sweetow and Henderson-Sabes, 2004). …”

SPATS: Speech perception assessment and training system

“…There is growing evidence that computer-based auditory training is beneficial and can be accomplished in the hearing clinic or at home (Burk and Humes, 2007;Burk and Humes, 2008;Burk et al, 2006;Fu, 2007;Miller et al, 2004;Miller et al, 2005;Miller, et al, 2007, Stecker et al, 2006Sweetow and Henderson-Sabes, 2004;Sweetow and Palmer, 2006;Sweetow and Sabes, 2006). SPATS was developed over approximately the same time span as many of the cited papers, but differs from them in the level of detail of the assessment component and in the kinds of training regimes available.…”