Purpose: This study investigated whether auditory spatial training using multi-talker speech and real-life background noise can improve speech-in-noise intelligibility in adult hearing aid users.Methods: Twenty-eight hearing aid users participated in this study. Fifteen adults underwent auditory spatial training, while the remaining 13 served as a non-trained control group. The trained participants completed an 8-week in-laboratory auditory spatial training program. During the training, target sentences recorded by 40 different talkers were presented with real-life environmental noise. The target speech and background noise were spatially separated, with spatial uncertainty introduced regarding their locations. The performance of trained and non-trained listeners was compared to assess the effectiveness of the auditory spatial training. Objective evaluation was conducted using the Korean Matrix sentence-in-noise recognition test in a sound-field condition, where speech and noise were spatially co-located or separated. Additionally, the Korean version of the profile of hearing aid benefit quick version was administered to assess subjective hearing aid benefit. All these tests were conducted three times: before training (pre-training), immediately after 8-week training (post-training), and 1 month after the 8-week training (retention).Results: Auditory spatial training significantly improved sentence-in-noise recognition in spatially co-located and separated conditions across all signal-to-noise ratios. The training effects were maintained for up to 1-month post-training. Furthermore, subjective questionnaire responses indicated positive effects of the training.Conclusion: An 8-week auditory spatial training program incorporating multi-talker speech and real-life environmental noise improved spatialized and non-spatialized speech-in-noise intelligibility in adult hearing aid users.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: