The effects of dosage and duration of auditory training for older adults with hearing impairment

Abstract

This study explored a range of training dosages and durations for a word-based auditory-training procedure for older adults with hearing impairment. Three groups received a different “dose”: 2x/week; 3x/week; no training. Fifteen training sessions comprised a “cycle” which was repeated three times for each dosage. Groups that completed training performed significantly better than controls for speech-in-noise materials included in the training regimen, with no significant difference observed between the 2x or 3x/week training groups. Based on these results, as well as prior literature on learning theory, training 2x or 3x/week for 5–15 weeks appears to be sufficient to yield training benefits with this training regimen.

Development of a home‐based auditory training to improve speech recognition on the telephone for patients with cochlear implants: A randomised trial

“…Total amount of training time is reported here as previous studies suggest that this might matter more than frequency or duration of training . Despite identical instructions, the filtered training group collectivity spent a greater amount of time on training than the unfiltered group.…”

“…Total amount of training time is reported here as previous studies suggest that this might matter more than frequency or duration of training. 26,27 Despite identical instructions, the filtered training Another limitation is that the study relied on the patient's own audio equipment, and therefore, it was not possible to control sound quality and loudness in the training setting. By omitting the need of specific equipment beyond training CDs, however, the approach proposed and evaluated here is very cost-effective.…”

Task- and Talker-Specific Gains in Auditory Training

“…Burk and Humes (2008), for example, found that auditory training led to improved word recognition for trained words but no improvement for recognition of untrained words. Of course, in addition to each of these types of specificity (task, talker, and stimulus), benefits also may be affected by other factors, such as the nature of the training regimen, including "dosage" (see Humes, Kinney, Brown, Kiener, & Quigley, 2014), which is another variable to consider when predicting the probable learning outcomes of auditory training programs.…”

Evaluation of Speech-Perception Training for Hearing Aid Users: A Multisite Study in Progress

“…Reviews of previous results with speech-perception training support the conclusions that speech-perception training results in (1) modest gains on the trained tasks, (2) some generalization to untrained materials, (3) good retention of trained improvements, and (4) favorable attitudes expressed by the participants toward the training experience. 2,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Evidence of dramatic general improvements in speech perception by hearing-impaired listeners after training is still lacking, and some studies lack appropriate control groups and sufficient sample sizes to assess individual differences. The reported gains are often accompanied by considerable variation from test to test and between individuals.…”

“…Recent reviews of these efforts can be found elsewhere. 2,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Despite these efforts, auditory training, more specifically, speech-perception training, has not become a standard part of audiological practice. We believe that one reason for this is the lack of a definitive, wellcontrolled, and carefully implemented definitive study of the efficacy of speech-perception training to determine whether, and for which individuals, speech-perception training might be an effective way to improve the success of hearing aid use.…”