Download PDF
Semin Hear 2016; 37(01): 084-098
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1570335
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Effect of Short-Term Auditory Training on Speech in Noise Perception and Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Adults with Cochlear Implants

Nathan Barlow
1   School of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand
,
Suzanne C. Purdy
1   School of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand
,
Mridula Sharma
2   Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University and HEARing CRC, NSW, Australia
,
Ellen Giles
3   Adult Northern Cochlear Implant Programme, University of Auckland, New Zealand
,
Vijay Narne
4   All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, University of Mysore, Mysuru, Karnataka, India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
04 February 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

The Effect of Short-Term Auditory Training on Speech in Noise Perception and Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Adults with Cochlear ImplantsSemin Hear 2016; 37(01): 099-100
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1579698

Abstract

This study investigated whether a short intensive psychophysical auditory training program is associated with speech perception benefits and changes in cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) in adult cochlear implant (CI) users. Ten adult implant recipients trained approximately 7 hours on psychophysical tasks (Gap-in-Noise Detection, Frequency Discrimination, Spectral Rippled Noise [SRN], Iterated Rippled Noise, Temporal Modulation). Speech performance was assessed before and after training using Lexical Neighborhood Test (LNT) words in quiet and in eight-speaker babble. CAEPs evoked by a natural speech stimulus /baba/ with varying syllable stress were assessed pre- and post-training, in quiet and in noise. SRN psychophysical thresholds showed a significant improvement (78% on average) over the training period, but performance on other psychophysical tasks did not change. LNT scores in noise improved significantly post-training by 11% on average compared with three pretraining baseline measures. N1P2 amplitude changed post-training for /baba/ in quiet (p = 0.005, visit 3 pretraining versus visit 4 post-training). CAEP changes did not correlate with behavioral measures. CI recipients' clinical records indicated a plateau in speech perception performance prior to participation in the study. A short period of intensive psychophysical training produced small but significant gains in speech perception in noise and spectral discrimination ability. There remain questions about the most appropriate type of training and the duration or dosage of training that provides the most robust outcomes for adults with CIs.

Keywords

Cochlear implant - cortical auditory evoked potential - auditory rehabilitation - auditory training - auditory plasticity - speech in noise
 

  • References

  • 1 Dowell R, Hollow R, Winton L. Changing selection criteria for cochlear implants–the Melbourne experience. Sydney, Cochlear Ltd white paper 2003. Available at: oldwebsite.cochlearacademy.com . Accessed January 7, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hickson L, Meyer C. Improving uptake and outcomes of hearing aid fitting for older adults: what are the barriers and facilitators?. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (Suppl. 01) S1-S2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Knudsen LV, Öberg M, Nielsen C, Naylor G, Kramer SE. Factors influencing help seeking, hearing aid uptake, hearing aid use and satisfaction with hearing aids: a review of the literature. Trends Amplif 2010; 14 (3) 127-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Arlinger S. Negative consequences of uncorrected hearing loss—a review. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (Suppl. 02) S17-S20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hogan A, O'Loughlin K, Miller P, Kendig H. The health impact of a hearing disability on older people in Australia. J Aging Health 2009; 21 (8) 1098-1111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lin FR, Metter EJ, O'Brien RJ, Resnick SM, Zonderman AB, Ferrucci L. Hearing loss and incident dementia. Arch Neurol 2011; 68 (2) 214-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Scarinci N, Worrall L, Hickson L. The effect of hearing impairment in older people on the spouse. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (3) 141-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Henshaw H, Ferguson MA. Efficacy of individual computer-based auditory training for people with hearing loss: a systematic review of the evidence. PLoS ONE 2013; 8 (5) e62836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Burkholder R, Pisoni D, Svirsky M. Perceptual learning and nonword repetition using a cochlear implant simulation. International Congress Series 2004; 1273: 208-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fu QJ, Galvin III JJ. Perceptual learning and auditory training in cochlear implant recipients. Trends Amplif 2007; 11 (3) 193-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Blamey P, Artieres F, Başkent D , et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol 2013; 18 (1) 36-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fu QJ, Galvin III JJ, Wang X, Nogaki G. Moderate auditory training can improve speech performance of adult cochlear implant patients. Acoust Res Lett Online 2005; 6 (3) 106-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ingvalson EM, Lee B, Fiebig P, Wong PC. The effects of short-term computerized speech-in-noise training on postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56 (1) 81-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stacey PC, Raine CH, O'Donoghue GM, Tapper L, Twomey T, Summerfield AQ. Effectiveness of computer-based auditory training for adult users of cochlear implants. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (5) 347-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fu QJ, Galvin III JJ. Maximizing cochlear implant patients' performance with advanced speech training procedures. Hear Res 2008; 242 (1-2) 198-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Oba SI, Fu QJ, Galvin III JJ. Digit training in noise can improve cochlear implant users' speech understanding in noise. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (5) 573-581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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. Acoustical Society of America 2007; 2 (1) 050004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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
  • 19 Kelly AS, Purdy SC, Thorne PR. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116 (6) 1235-1246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Purdy SC, Kelly AS, Thorne PR. Auditory evoked potentials as measures of plasticity in humans. Audiol Neurootol 2001; 6 (4) 211-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Anderson S, Kraus N. Auditory training: evidence for neural plasticity in older adults. Perspect Hear Hear Disord Res Res Diagn 2013; 17 (1) 37-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fallon JB, Irvine DR, Shepherd RK. Cochlear implants and brain plasticity. Hear Res 2008; 238 (1-2) 110-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sharma M, Purdy SC, Kelly AS. The contribution of speech-evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials to the diagnosis and measurement of intervention outcomes in children with auditory processing disorder. Semin Hear 2014; 35 (1) 51-64
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bishop DV. Research Review: Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 2012—neuroscientific studies of intervention for language impairment in children: interpretive and methodological problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2013; 54 (3) 247-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Anderson S, Skoe E, Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N. Neural timing is linked to speech perception in noise. J Neurosci 2010; 30 (14) 4922-4926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Shannon RV. Detection of gaps in sinusoids and pulse trains by patients with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 85 (6) 2587-2592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Moller AR. Hearing: It's Physiology and Pathophysiology. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 28 McKay CM. Spectral processing in cochlear implants. Int Rev Neurobiol 2005; 70: 473-509
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Maarefvand M, Marozeau J, Blamey PJ. A cochlear implant user with exceptional musical hearing ability. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (6) 424-432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Busby PA, Clark GM. Gap detection by early-deafened cochlear-implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105 (3) 1841-1852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Won JH, Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT. Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2007; 8 (3) 384-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Anderson ES, Oxenham AJ, Nelson PB, Nelson DA. Assessing the role of spectral and intensity cues in spectral ripple detection and discrimination in cochlear-implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2012; 132 (6) 3925-3934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Luo X, Fu QJ, Wei CG, Cao KL. Speech recognition and temporal amplitude modulation processing by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (6) 957-970
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Fu QJ, Galvin III J, Wang X, Nogaki G. Effects of auditory training on adult cochlear implant patients: a preliminary report. Cochlear Implants Int 2004; 5 (Suppl. 01) 84-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Moore BC. The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2008; 9 (4) 399-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Patterson RD, Handel S, Yost WA, Datta AJ. The relative strength of the tone and noise components in iterated rippled noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 100 (5) 3286-3294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J , et al. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (3) 412-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 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
  • 39 Strait DL, Kraus N. Can you hear me now? Musical training shapes functional brain networks for selective auditory attention and hearing speech in noise. Front Psychol 2011; 2: 113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Bugos JA, Perlstein WM, McCrae CS, Brophy TS, Bedenbaugh PH. Individualized piano instruction enhances executive functioning and working memory in older adults. Aging Ment Health 2007; 11 (4) 464-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Lazard DS, Vincent C, Venail F , et al. Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PLoS ONE 2012; 7 (11) e48739
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Francart T, van Wieringen A, Wouters J. APEX 3: a multi-purpose test platform for auditory psychophysical experiments. J Neurosci Methods 2008; 172 (2) 283-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Peter V, Wong K, Narne VK, Sharma M, Purdy SC, McMahon C. Assessing spectral and temporal processing in children and adults using temporal modulation transfer function (TMTF), Iterated Ripple Noise (IRN) perception, and spectral ripple discrimination (SRD). J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25 (2) 210-218
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Kirk KI. Assessing Speech Perception in Listeners with Cochlear Implants: The Development of the Lexical Neighborhood Tests. Volta Review 1998; 100 (2) 63-85
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Meha-Bettison K. The Musical Advantage: Professional Musicians have Enhanced Auditory Processing Abilities [Thesis]. Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Musiek FE, Shinn JB, Jirsa R, Bamiou DE, Baran JA, Zaida E. GIN (Gaps-In-Noise) test performance in subjects with confirmed central auditory nervous system involvement. Ear Hear 2005; 26 (6) 608-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Sharma M, Purdy SC, Munro KJ, Sawaya K, Peter V. Effects of broadband noise on cortical evoked auditory responses at different loudness levels in young adults. Neuroreport 2014; 25 (5) 312-319
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Billings CJ, Tremblay KL, Stecker GC, Tolin WM. Human evoked cortical activity to signal-to-noise ratio and absolute signal level. Hear Res 2009; 254 (1–2) 15-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Shahin A, Bosnyak DJ, Trainor LJ, Roberts LE. Enhancement of neuroplastic P2 and N1c auditory evoked potentials in musicians. J Neurosci 2003; 23 (13) 5545-5552
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T, Ponton C, Otis B. Central auditory plasticity: changes in the N1-P2 complex after speech-sound training. Ear Hear 2001; 22 (2) 79-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Tremblay KL, Inoue K, McClannahan K, Ross B. Repeated stimulus exposure alters the way sound is encoded in the human brain. PLoS ONE 2010; 5 (4) e10283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T. The time course of auditory perceptual learning: neurophysiological changes during speech-sound training. Neuroreport 1998; 9 (16) 3557-3560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Isaiah A, Hartley DE. Can training extend current guidelines for cochlear implant candidacy?. Neural Regen Res 2015; 10 (5) 718-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Moore DR, Halliday LF, Amitay S. Use of auditory learning to manage listening problems in children. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2009; 364 (1515) 409-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Lunner T, Rudner M, Rönnberg J. Cognition and hearing aids. Scand J Psychol 2009; 50 (5) 395-403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Ng EH, Classon E, Larsby B , et al. Dynamic relation between working memory capacity and speech recognition in noise during the first 6 months of hearing aid use. Trends Hear 2014; 18: 2331216514558688
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Molloy K, Moore DR, Sohoglu E, Amitay S. Less is more: latent learning is maximized by shorter training sessions in auditory perceptual learning. PLoS ONE 2012; 7 (5) e36929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar