Training der Phonemdis﻿kri﻿mi﻿na﻿tion mit erfah﻿renen Cochleaimplantatträgern

Schumann, Annette; Liebscher, T; Hoppe, Ulrich

doi:10.1007/s00106-016-0204-0

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different kinds of video-game-like exercises which require auditory, visuospatial, short-term, and workingmemory skills were offered 5 times a week for a period of The transfer of trained to untrained material is a key issue in rehabilitation in general [Shipstead et al, 2012;Henshaw and Ferguson, 2013;Melby-Lervåg and Hulme, 2013;Saunders et al, 2016]. In most studies dealing with auditory training, the impact on trained items has been described, but long-term or transfer effects have rarely been reported [Sweetow and Palmer, 2005;Bernstein et al, 2012;Ingvalson and Wong, 2013;Shafiro et al, 2015;Schumann et al, 2016;Green et al, 2019]. These mixed findings may be due to a limited overlap between the training and the untrained tasks, or due to an insufficient duration of the training used [Reis et al, 2021].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poor Performer: A Distinct Entity in Cochlear Implant Users?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Several factors are known to influence speech perception in cochlear implant (CI) users. To date, the underlying mechanisms have not yet been fully clarified. Although many CI users achieve a high level of speech perception, a small percentage of patients does not or only slightly benefit from the CI (poor performer, PP). In a previous study, PP showed significantly poorer results on nonauditory-based cognitive and linguistic tests than CI users with a very high level of speech understanding (star performer, SP). We now investigate if PP also differs from the CI user with an average performance (average performer, AP) in cognitive and linguistic performance. Methods: Seventeen adult postlingually deafened CI users with speech perception scores in quiet of 55 (9.32) % (AP) on the German Freiburg monosyllabic speech test at 65 dB underwent neurocognitive (attention, working memory, short- and long-term memory, verbal fluency, inhibition) and linguistic testing (word retrieval, lexical decision, phonological input lexicon). The results were compared to the performance of 15 PP (speech perception score of 15 [11.80] %) and 19 SP (speech perception score of 80 [4.85] %). For statistical analysis, U-Test and discrimination analysis have been done. Results: Significant differences between PP and AP were observed on linguistic tests, in Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN: p = 0.0026), lexical decision (LexDec: p = 0.026), phonological input lexicon (LEMO: p = 0.0085), and understanding of incomplete words (TRT: p = 0.0024). AP also had significantly better neurocognitive results than PP in the domains of attention (M3: p = 0.009) and working memory (OSPAN: p = 0.041; RST: p = 0.015) but not in delayed recall (delayed recall: p = 0.22), verbal fluency (verbal fluency: p = 0.084), and inhibition (Flanker: p = 0.35). In contrast, no differences were found hereby between AP and SP. Based on the TRT and the RAN, AP and PP could be separated in 100%. Discussion: The results indicate that PP constitute a distinct entity of CI users that differs even in nonauditory abilities from CI users with an average speech perception, especially with regard to rapid word retrieval either due to reduced phonological abilities or limited storage. Further studies should investigate if improved word retrieval by increased phonological and semantic training results in better speech perception in these CI users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poor Performer: A Distinct Entity in Cochlear Implant Users?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of digital auditory rehabilitation in adult CI users, and these studies also have only analyzed some aspects in a small number of participants (ie, less than 20) [19][20][21]. In Schumann et al [22] 15 CI users received 3 weeks of training on phoneme discrimination. A control group and follow-up assessments were not included.…”

Section: Computer-based Auditory Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Presentation was performed via an audio file and an audio loop. The consonants and vowels were presented in nonsense syllables (vowels:/m/-vowel-/m/; consonants:/a/-consonant-/a/), as described by Schumann et al [22]. The participants were asked to choose the target item from a selection of distractors.…”

Section: Phoneme Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tablet-Based Telerehabilitation Versus Conventional Face-to-Face Rehabilitation After Cochlear Implantation: Prospective Intervention Pilot Study (Preprint)

Völter¹,

Stöckmann²,

Schirmer³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Technologies allowing home-based rehabilitation may be a key means saving financial resources, but also facilitating people’s access to treatment. After cochlear implantation (CI) auditory training is necessary to adapt the brain to the new auditory signals transmitted by the CI. So far auditory training takes place in a face-to-face setting in a specialized center. But due to the world-wide COVID-19 pandemic with a tremendous impact on health care, the urge for new therapeutic settings has emerged. OBJECTIVE The aims of this study were 1) to assess the feasibility of a novel teletherapeutic auditory rehabilitation platform in adult CI recipients and 2) to compare the clinical outcome with regard to a conventional face-to-face rehabilitation setting in a clinic. METHODS 20 experienced adult CI users with a mean age of 59.4 years (SD 16.3) participated in the study. For the study they completed 3 weeks of standard (face-to-face) therapy, followed by 3 weeks of computer-based auditory training (CBAT) at home. Participants were assessed at three intervals: before face-to-face therapy, after face-to-face therapy, and after CBAT. The primary outcomes were speech understanding in quiet and noise. The secondary outcomes were the usability of the CBAT system and participants’ subjective rating of their own listening abilities. The amount of time necessary to complete face-to-face sessions and CBAT sessions was noted for CI users and for therapists. RESULTS Greater benefits were observed after the CBAT than after standard therapy in nearly all speech outcome measures. Significant improvement was found in sentence comprehension in noise (Pw.0036), speech tracking (Pw .0036), and syllable differentiation (vowels: Pw .002; consonants: Pw.023) after CBAT. Only speech tracking improved significantly after conventional therapy (Pw.0095). The program’s usability was judged to be high; only 2/20 participants could not imagine using the program without support. The different features of the training platform were rated high except for videoconferencing, which could not replace personal contact with the therapist. Therapists spent 360 min per week on face-to-face sessions and 60 min per week on CBAT. For CI users, attending face-to-face sessions necessitated approximately 2 hours of travel time per week. CONCLUSIONS The new teletherapeutic approach for hearing rehabilitation enables a good clinical outcome while saving time for CI users and clinicians. The promising speech understanding results might be due to the increased CI users’ empowerment, as shown by the high satisfaction of the users with the CBAT program. Teletherapy might be a solution to address to the global challenge of current or further pandemics.

show abstract

Hörtherapeutische Gruppenkonzepte in der Cochleaimplantat-Rehabilitation bei Erwachsenen

Glaubitz

Lehmann

Weber

et al. 2019

HNO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Training der Phonemdiskrimination mit erfahrenen Cochleaimplantatträgern

Abstract: Computerised auditory training with phonemes improves CI listeners' discrimination abilities for consonants and vowels.

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Poor Performer: A Distinct Entity in Cochlear Implant Users?

Poor Performer: A Distinct Entity in Cochlear Implant Users?

Tablet-Based Telerehabilitation Versus Conventional Face-to-Face Rehabilitation After Cochlear Implantation: Prospective Intervention Pilot Study (Preprint)

Hörtherapeutische Gruppenkonzepte in der Cochleaimplantat-Rehabilitation bei Erwachsenen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Training der Phonemdis﻿kri﻿mi﻿na﻿tion mit erfah﻿renen Cochleaimplantatträgern

Abstract: Computerised auditory training with phonemes improves CI listeners' discrimination abilities for consonants and vowels.

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Poor Performer: A Distinct Entity in Cochlear Implant Users?

Poor Performer: A Distinct Entity in Cochlear Implant Users?

Tablet-Based Telerehabilitation Versus Conventional Face-to-Face Rehabilitation After Cochlear Implantation: Prospective Intervention Pilot Study (Preprint)

Hörtherapeutische Gruppenkonzepte in der Cochleaimplantat-Rehabilitation bei Erwachsenen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Training der Phonemdiskrimination mit erfahrenen Cochleaimplantatträgern