Download PDF
Semin Hear 2015; 36(04): 237-249
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1564456
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

How Does Auditory Training Work? Joined-Up Thinking and Listening

Melanie Ferguson
1   NIHR Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
2   Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
,
Helen Henshaw
1   NIHR Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 October 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

How does Auditory Training Work? Joined up Thinking and ListeningSemin Hear 2015; 36(04): 237-237
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1568985

Abstract

Auditory training aims to compensate for degradation in the auditory signal and is offered as an intervention to help alleviate the most common complaint in people with hearing loss, understanding speech in a background noise. Yet there remain many unanswered questions. This article reviews some of the key pieces of evidence that assess the evidence for whether, and how, auditory training benefits adults with hearing loss. The evidence supports that improvements occur on the trained task; however, transfer of that learning to generalized real-world benefit is much less robust. For more than a decade, there has been an increasing awareness of the role that cognition plays in listening. But more recently in the auditory training literature, there has been an increased focus on assessing how cognitive performance relevant for listening may improve with training. We argue that this is specifically the case for measures that index executive processes, such as monitoring, attention switching, and updating of working memory, all of which are required for successful listening and communication in challenging or adverse listening conditions. We propose combined auditory-cognitive training approaches, where training interventions develop cognition embedded within auditory tasks, which are most likely to offer generalized benefits to the real-world listening abilities of people with hearing loss.

Keywords

Auditory training - hearing loss - working memory - attention - communication - hearing aids - executive function - speech perception
 

  • References

  • 1 Davis A, Smith P, Ferguson M, Stephens D, Gianopoulos I. Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: a study of potential screening tests and models. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11 (42) 1-294
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 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
  • 3 Lin FR, Ferrucci L, An Y , et al. Association of hearing impairment with brain volume changes in older adults. Neuroimage 2014; 90: 84-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Boothroyd A. Adapting to changed hearing: the potential role of formal training. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21 (9) 601-611
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pichora-Fuller MK, Singh G. Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends Amplif 2006; 10 (1) 29-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tun PA, Williams VA, Small BJ, Hafter ER. The effects of aging on auditory processing and cognition. Am J Audiol 2012; 21 (2) 344-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Akeroyd MA. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (Suppl. 02) S53-S71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Shinn-Cunningham BG, Best V. Selective attention in normal and impaired hearing. Trends Amplif 2008; 12 (4) 283-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Moore DR, Edmondson-Jones M, Dawes P , et al. Relation between speech-in-noise threshold, hearing loss and cognition from 40–69 years of age. PLoS ONE 2014; 9 (9) e107720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kiessling J, Pichora-Fuller MK, Gatehouse S , et al. Candidature for and delivery of audiological services: special needs of older people. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (Suppl. 02) S92-S101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Sweetow RW, Sabes JH. The need for and development of an adaptive Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) program. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (8) 538-558
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Parbery-Clark A, Kraus N. A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Hear Res 2013; 300: 18-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 de Boer J, Thornton ARD. Neural correlates of perceptual learning in the auditory brainstem: efferent activity predicts and reflects improvement at a speech-in-noise discrimination task. J Neurosci 2008; 28 (19) 4929-4937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tremblay KL, Billings CJ, Friesen LM, Souza PE. Neural representation of amplified speech sounds. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (2) 93-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lunner T. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (Suppl. 01) S49-S58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (Suppl. 01) S77-S85
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lunner T, Sundewall-Thorén E. Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (7) 604-617
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sarampalis A, Kalluri S, Edwards B, Hafter E. Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009; 52 (5) 1230-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Chisolm TH, Johnson CE, Danhauer JL , et al. A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force on the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in Adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (2) 151-183
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VIII: consumer satisfaction with hearing aids is slowly increasing. Hearing J 2010; 63 (1) 19-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Johnson EE, Dillon H. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol 2011; 22 (7) 441-459
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dubno JR. Benefits of auditory training for aided listening by older adults. Am J Audiol 2013; 22 (2) 335-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 World Health Organization. Deafness and hearing loss. 2015 . Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs300/en/ . Accessed April 14, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Boothroyd A. Adult aural rehabilitation: what is it and does it work?. Trends Amplif 2007; 11 (2) 63-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bamford J. Auditory train. What is it, what is it supposed to do, and does it do it?. Br J Audiol 1981; 15 (2) 75-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kricos PB, McCarthy P. From ear to there: a historical perspective on auditory training. Semin Hear 2007; 28 (2) 89-98
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pichora-Fuller MK, Levitt H. Speech comprehension training and auditory and cognitive processing in older adults. Am J Audiol 2012; 21 (2) 351-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Moore DR, Amitay S. Auditory training: rules and applications. Semin Hear 2007; 28 (2) 99-109
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 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
  • 31 Tremblay K. Training-related changes in the brain: evidence from human auditory-evoked potentials. Semin Hear 2007; 28 (2) 120-132
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 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
  • 33 Pizarek R, Shafiro V, McCarthy P. Effect of computerized auditory training on speech perception of adults with hearing impairment. Perspectives 2013; 20 (3) 91-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Zhang M, Miller A, Campbell MM. Overview of nine computerized, home-based auditory-training programs for adult cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25 (4) 405-413
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 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
  • 36 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
  • 37 Wong LL, Hickson L. Evidence-Based Practice in Audiology: Evaluating Interventions for Children and Adults with Hearing Impairment. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 38 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
  • 39 Recanzone GH, Schreiner CE, Merzenich MM. Plasticity in the frequency representation of primary auditory cortex following discrimination training in adult owl monkeys. J Neurosci 1993; 13 (1) 87-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 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
  • 41 Chisolm T, Arnold M. Evidence about the effectiveness of aural rehabilitation programs for adults. In: Wong L, Hickson L, , eds. Evidence-Based Practice in Audiology. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Parbery-Clark A, Kraus N. Reversal of age-related neural timing delays with training. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013; 110 (11) 4357-4362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Ferguson MA, Henshaw H, Clark DP, 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
  • 44 Kuchinsky SE, Ahlstrom JB, Cute SL, Humes LE, Dubno JR, Eckert MA. Speech-perception training for older adults with hearing loss impacts word recognition and effort. Psychophysiology 2014; 51 (10) 1046-1057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Barker F, Mackenzie E, Elliott L, Jones S, de Lusignan S. Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 7: CD010342
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Brown DJ, Proulx MJ. Increased signal complexity improves the breadth of generalization in auditory perceptual learning. Neural Plast 2013; 2013: 879047
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Schumann A, Serman M, Gefeller O, Hoppe U. Computer-based auditory phoneme discrimination training improves speech recognition in noise in experienced adult cochlear implant listeners. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (3) 190-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Burk MH, Humes LE, Amos NE, Strauser LE. Effect of training on word-recognition performance in noise for young normal-hearing and older hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (3) 263-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, Croghan TW. Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Med Care 2002; 40 (9) 794-811
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Chisolm TH, Saunders GH, Frederick MT, McArdle RA, Smith SL, Wilson RH. Learning to listen again: the role of compliance in auditory training for adults with hearing loss. Am J Audiol 2013; 22 (2) 339-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 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
  • 52 Deci E, Ryan R. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Regulation in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1985
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Bavelier D, Davidson RJ. Games to do you good: neuroscientists should help to develop compelling videogames that boost brain function and improve well-being. Nature 2013; 494: 425-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Ferguson M, Henshaw H. Auditory training as an intervention for adults with hearing loss; the current state of play. ENT Audiol News 2011; 20 (4) 104-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Sedgwick P. Clinical significance versus statistical significance. BMJ 2014; 348: g2130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Humes LE. Individual differences research and hearing aid outcomes. Semin Hear 2013; 34 (02) 67-73
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Gatehouse S. Rehabilitation: identification of needs, priorities and expectations, and the evaluation of benefit. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (2) (Suppl. 02) S77-S83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Gatehouse S, Noble W. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (2) 85-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Chan RCK, Shum D, Toulopoulou T, Chen EYH. Assessment of executive functions: review of instruments and identification of critical issues. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2008; 23 (2) 201-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Henshaw H, McCormack A, Ferguson MA. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation drives computer-based auditory training uptake, engagement, and adherence for people with hearing loss. Frontiers in Psychology 2015; 6 (1067) 1-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Lampit A, Hallock H, Valenzuela M. Computerized cognitive training in cognitively healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effect modifiers. PLoS Med 2014; 11 (11) e1001756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Song JH, Skoe E, Banai K, Kraus N. Training to improve hearing speech in noise: biological mechanisms. Cereb Cortex 2012; 22 (5) 1180-1190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Choi HJ, Kraus N. Training changes processing of speech cues in older adults with hearing loss. Front Syst Neurosci 2013; 7 (97) 97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Henshaw H, Ferguson MA. Assessing the benefits of auditory training to real-world listening: identifying appropriate and sensitive outcomes. Paper presented at: Proceedings of ISAAR 2013: Auditory Plasticity—Listening with the Brain. 4th Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research. Nyborg, Denmark; 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Henshaw H, Ferguson MA. Working memory training for adult hearing aid users: study protocol for a double-blind randomized active controlled trial. Trials 2013; 14 (1) 417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Ferguson MA, Henshaw H. Auditory training can improve working memory, attention, and communication in adverse conditions for adults with hearing loss. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 556
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Owen AM, Hampshire A, Grahn JA , et al. Putting brain training to the test. Nature 2010; 465 (7299) 775-778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Shinn-Cunningham BG. Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends Cogn Sci 2008; 12 (5) 182-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Howard CS, Munro KJ, Plack CJ. Listening effort at signal-to-noise ratios that are typical of the school classroom. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (12) 928-932
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Zekveld AA, Kramer SE, Festen JM. Cognitive load during speech perception in noise: the influence of age, hearing loss, and cognition on the pupil response. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (4) 498-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Kuchinsky SE, Ahlstrom JB, Vaden Jr KI , et al. Pupil size varies with word listening and response selection difficulty in older adults with hearing loss. Psychophysiology 2013; 50 (1) 23-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Petersen EB, Wöstmann M, Obleser J, Stenfelt S, Lunner T. Hearing loss impacts neural alpha oscillations under adverse listening conditions. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Brehmer Y, Westerberg H, Bäckman L. Working-memory training in younger and older adults: training gains, transfer, and maintenance. Front Hum Neurosci 2012; 6 (63) 63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Kronenberger WG, Pisoni DB, Henning SC, Colson BG, Hazzard LM. Working memory training for children with cochlear implants: a pilot study. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011; 54 (4) 1182-1196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Melby-Lervåg M, Hulme C. Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Dev Psychol 2013; 49 (2) 270-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Thompson TW, Waskom ML, Garel KL , et al. Failure of working memory training to enhance cognition or intelligence. PLoS ONE 2013; 8 (5) e63614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Dunning DL, Holmes J. Does working memory training promote the use of strategies on untrained working memory tasks?. Mem Cognit 2014; 42 (6) 854-862
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Ferguson M, Brandreth M, Leighton P, Brassington W, Wharrad H. A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the benefits of a multimedia educational programme for first-time hearing aid users. Ear Hear [Epub ahead of print]
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Thorén ES, Öberg M, Wänström G, Andersson G, Lunner T. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of online rehabilitative intervention for adult hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (7) 452-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Hickson L, Worrall L, Scarinci N. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the active communication education program for older people with hearing impairment. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (2) 212-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Laplante-Levesque A, Hickson L, Worrall L. A qualitative study of shared decision making in rehabilitative audiology. J Acad Rehabilitative Audiol 2010; 43: 27-43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Kamil RJ, Lin FR. The effects of hearing impairment in older adults on communication partners: a systematic review. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (2) 155-182
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Deloitte. The smartphone generation gap: over 55? There's no app for that. Available at: http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Technology-Media-Telecommunications/gx-tmt-2014prediction-smartphone.pdf 2014 . Accessed December 10, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Ferguson M, Henshaw H. Computer and Internet interventions to optimise listening and learning for people with hearing loss: accessibility, use and adherence. Am J Audiol In press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar