Task- and Talker-Specific Gains in Auditory Training Purpose This investigation focused on generalization of outcomes for auditory training by examining the effects of task and/or talker overlap between training and at test. Method Adults with hearing loss completed 12 hr of meaning-oriented auditory training and were placed in a group that trained on either multiple ... Research Forum
Research Forum  |   August 01, 2016
Task- and Talker-Specific Gains in Auditory Training
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Joe Barcroft
    Washington University, St. Louis
  • Brent Spehar
    Washington University, St. Louis School of Medicine
  • Nancy Tye-Murray
    Washington University, St. Louis School of Medicine
  • Mitchell Sommers
    Washington University, St. Louis
  • Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.
    Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication. ×
  • Correspondence to Joe Barcroft: barcroft@wustl.edu
  • Editor: Rhea Paul
    Editor: Rhea Paul×
  • Associate Editor: Suzanne Purdy
    Associate Editor: Suzanne Purdy×
Article Information
Audiologic / Aural Rehabilitation / Research Forum: New Directions for Auditory Training
Research Forum   |   August 01, 2016
Task- and Talker-Specific Gains in Auditory Training
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 2016, Vol. 59, 862-870. doi:10.1044/2016_JSLHR-H-15-0170
History: Received May 15, 2015 , Revised September 15, 2015 , Accepted January 15, 2016
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 2016, Vol. 59, 862-870. doi:10.1044/2016_JSLHR-H-15-0170
History: Received May 15, 2015; Revised September 15, 2015; Accepted January 15, 2016

Purpose This investigation focused on generalization of outcomes for auditory training by examining the effects of task and/or talker overlap between training and at test.

Method Adults with hearing loss completed 12 hr of meaning-oriented auditory training and were placed in a group that trained on either multiple talkers or a single talker. A control group also completed 12 hr of training in American Sign Language. The experimental group’s training included a 4-choice discrimination task but not an open-set sentence test. The assessment phase included the same 4-choice discrimination task and an open-set sentence test, the Iowa Sentences Test (Tyler, Preece, & Tye-Murray, 1986).

Results Improvement on 4-choice discrimination was observed in the experimental group as compared with the control group. Gains were (a) highest when the task and talker were the same between training and assessment; (b) second highest when the task was the same but the talker only partially so; and (c) third highest when task and talker were different.

Conclusions The findings support applications of transfer-appropriate processing to auditory training and favor tailoring programs toward the specific needs of the individuals being trained for tasks, talkers, and perhaps, for stimuli, in addition to other factors.

Acknowledgment
Support was provided by National Institutes of Health Grant RO1DC008964, awarded to Nancy Tye-Murray.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access