Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37887083›Full record

ArticleClinics and practice2023

Individual Differences in Auditory Training Benefits for Hearing Aid Users.

Ayelet Barda, Yair Shapira, Leah Fostick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ayelet BardaDepartment of Health Management, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel.
Yair ShapiraDepartment of Health Management, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel.
Leah FostickDepartment of Communication Disorders, Auditory Perception Lab in the Name of Laurent Levy, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-3594-6229

Funding

Ariel University Internal grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study aimed to examine whether individual differences in baseline speech perception could serve as predictors for the effectiveness and generalization of auditory training (AT) to non-trained tasks. Twelve adults, aged 60-75 years with bilateral hearing loss, completed a two-month, home-based, computerized AT program, involving sessions four times per week. Training tasks included the identification of vowel frontal, height, manner of articulation, point of articulation, voicing, and open-set consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words. Non-trained speech perception tests were conducted one month before AT, prior to training, after one and two months of training, and during a two-month follow-up. The results showed that one month of AT improved performance in most trained tasks, with generalization observed in the CVC words test and HeBio sentences with speech-shaped noise (SSN). No evidence of spontaneous learning or added benefit from an extra month of training was found. Most importantly, baseline speech perception predicted improvements in both training and post-training generalization tasks. This emphasizes the significance of adopting an individualized approach when determining the potential effectiveness of AT, applicable in both clinical and research contexts.

Indexed as

auditory traininggeneralizationindividual differencesspeech perception

Identifiers

PMID37887083
PMCPMC10605281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.