Download PDF
Semin Hear 2015; 36(04): 273-283
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1564453
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

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

James D. Miller
1   Communication Disorders Technology, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana
,
Charles S. Watson
1   Communication Disorders Technology, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana
,
Judy R. Dubno
2   Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
,
Marjorie R. Leek
3   Loma Linda VA Healthcare System, Loma Linda, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 October 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Following an overview of theoretical issues in speech-perception training and of previous efforts to enhance hearing aid use through training, a multisite study, designed to evaluate the efficacy of two types of computerized speech-perception training for adults who use hearing aids, is described. One training method focuses on the identification of 109 syllable constituents (45 onsets, 28 nuclei, and 36 codas) in quiet and in noise, and on the perception of words in sentences presented in various levels of noise. In a second type of training, participants listen to 6- to 7-minute narratives in noise and are asked several questions about each narrative. Two groups of listeners are trained, each using one of these types of training, performed in a laboratory setting. The training for both groups is preceded and followed by a series of speech-perception tests. Subjects listen in a sound field while wearing their hearing aids at their usual settings. The training continues over 15 to 20 visits, with subjects completing at least 30 hours of focused training with one of the two methods. The two types of training are described in detail, together with a summary of other perceptual and cognitive measures obtained from all participants.

Keywords

Speech perception - hearing aid users - syllabic constituents - signal-to-noise ratio - adaptive training - SPATS
 

  • References

  • 1 Johnson K, Ralston JV. Automaticity in speech perception: some speech/nonspeech comparisons. Phonetica 1994; 51 (4) 195-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Downs MP, Weaver ME. Sensorineural Hearing Loss. In: Wood RP, Northern JL, Jafek BW, , eds. Manual of Otolaryngology: A Symptom-Oriented Text. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1979: 1-10
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Woods DL, Doss Z, Herron TJ , et al. Speech perception in older hearing impaired listeners: benefits of perceptual training. PLoS One 2015; 10 (3) e0113965
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110 (2) 1150-1163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Boothroyd A, Nittrouer S. Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 84 (1) 101-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bronkhorst AW, Bosman AJ, Smoorenburg GF. A model for context effects in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 93 (1) 499-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bronkhorst AW, Brand T, Wagener K. Evaluation of context effects in sentence recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111 (6) 2874-2886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C. Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear 1987; 8 (5, Suppl): 119S-126S
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C, Pusakulich KM. Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 1988; 9 (4) 198-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C, Pusakulich KM. The Connected Speech Test version 3: audiovisual administration. Ear Hear 1989; 10 (1) 29-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Miller JD, Watson CS, Kewley-Port D, Sillings R, Mills WB, Burleson DF. SPATS: Speech perception assessment and training system. Proc Meet Acoust 2008; 2 (050005) 17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Miller JD, Watson CS, Kidd GR, Dubno JR, Leek MR. Multi-site study of the efficacy of speech perception training for hearing-aid users: year I. Paper presented at: IHCON: International Hearing-Aid Research Conference; August 8–12 2012; Tahoe City, CA
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Miller JD, Watson CS, Kistler DJ, Preminger JE, Wark DJ. Training listeners to identify the sounds of speech: II. Using SPATS software. Hear J 2008; 61 (10) 29-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Watson CS, Miller JD. Computer-based perceptual training as a major component of adult instruction in a foreign language. In: Zou B, Xing M, Wang Y, Sun M, Xiang CH, , eds. Computer Assisted Foreign Language Teaching and Learning: Technological Advances. Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2013: 230-244
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Miller GA, Heise GA, Lichten W. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J Exp Psychol 1951; 41 (5) 329-335
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Erber NP. Communication Therapy for Adults with Sensory Loss. Melbourne, Australia: Clavis Publishers; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Tye-Murray N. Foundations of Aural Rehabilitation: Children, Adults, and Family Members. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 18 LaBerge D, Samuels J. Towards a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognit Psychol 1974; 6: 293-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Schneider W, Shiffrin RM. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychol Rev 1977; 84: 1-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Shiffrin RM, Schneider W. Controlled and automatic information processing: II: Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychol Rev 1977; 84: 127-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schneider W, Fisk AD. Attentional theory and mechanisms for skilled performance. In: Magill RA, , ed. Memory and Control of Action. New York, NY: North-Holland Publishing Company; 1983: 119-143
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sweetow R, Palmer CV. Efficacy of individual auditory training in adults: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (7) 494-504
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Olson AD . Auditory Training at Home for Adult Hearing Aid Users [dissertation], University of Lexington Kentucky; 2010
    PubMed
  • 24 Sweetow RW, Sabes JH. Auditory training and challenges associated with participation and compliance. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21 (9) 586-593
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Brouns K, Refaie AE, Pryce H. Auditory training and adult rehabilitation: a critical review of the evidence. Global J Health Sci 2010; 3 (1) 49-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Dubno JR. Benefits of auditory training for aided listening by older adults. Am J Audiol 2013; 22 (2) 335-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Olson AD, Preminger JE, Shinn JB. The effect of LACE DVD training in new and experienced hearing aid users. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (3) 214-230
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Humes LE, Kinney DL, Brown SE, Kiener AL, Quigley TM. The effects of dosage and duration of auditory training for older adults with hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 136 (3) EL224-EL230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ferguson MA, Henshaw H, Clark DPA, Moore DR. Benefits of phoneme discrimination training in a randomized controlled trial of 50- to 74-year-olds with mild hearing loss. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (4) e110-e121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Watson CS, Miller JD, Kewley-Port D, Humes LE, Wightman FL. Training listeners to identify the sounds of speech: I. A review of past studies. Hear J 2008; 61 (9) 26-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Espinoza-Varas B, Watson CS. Perception of complex auditory patterns by humans. In: Dooling RJ, Hulse SH, , eds. The Comparative Psychology of Audition: Perceiving Complex Sounds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Assoc.; 1989: 67-95
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Miller JD, Watson CS, Kistler DJ, Wightman FL, Preminger JE. Preliminary evaluation of the speech perception assessment and training system (SPATS) with hearing-aid and cochlear-implant users. Proc Meet Acoust 2008; 2 (050004) 9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Olsen WO. Average speech levels and spectra in various speaking/listening conditions: a summary of the Pearson, Bennett, & Fidell report. Am J Audiol 1998; 7: 21-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kidd GR, Watson CS, Gygi B. Individual differences in auditory abilities. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 122 (1) 418-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 TBAC. A brief manual of instructions for the use of the Test of Basic Auditory Capabilities, modification 4. Available at: http://www.comdistec.com/new/tbac/TBACManual2009edited.pdf . Accessed September 24, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Watson CS, Qiu WW, Chamberlain MM, Li X. Auditory and visual speech perception: confirmation of a modality-independent source of individual differences in speech recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 100 (2 Pt 1): 1153-1162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Zekveld AA, George EL, Kramer SE, Goverts ST, Houtgast T. The development of the text reception threshold test: a visual analogue of the speech reception threshold test. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50 (3) 576-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Wilson RH, Carnell CS, Cleghorn AL. The Words-in-Noise (WIN) test with multitalker babble and speech-spectrum noise maskers. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (6) 522-529
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116 (4 Pt 1): 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Hirsh IJ, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds EG, Eldert E, Benson RW. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 1952; 17 (3) 321-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Watson CS, Kidd GR, Miller JD, Smits C, Humes LE. Telephone screening tests for functionally impaired hearing: current use in seven countries and development of a US version. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (10) 757-767
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Williams-Sanchez V, McArdle RA, Wilson RH, Kidd GR, Watson CS, Bourne AL. Validation of a screening test of auditory function using the telephone. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25 (10) 937-951
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (2) 176-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Kaernbach C. Simple adaptive testing with the weighted up-down method. Percept Psychophys 1991; 49 (3) 227-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Leek MR, Watson CS. Learning to detect auditory pattern components. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76 (4) 1037-1044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar