Auditory training and adult rehabilitation:a critical review of the evidence

Auditory Training (AT) describes a regimen of varied listening exercises designed to improve an individual’s ability to perceive speech. The theory of AT is based on brain plasticity (the capacity of neurones in the central auditory system to alter their structure and function) in response to auditory stimulation. The practice of repeatedly listening to the speech sounds included in AT exercises is believed to drive the development of more efficient neuronal pathways, thereby improving auditory processing and speech discrimination. This critical review aims to assess whether auditory training can improve speech discrimination in adults with mild-moderate SNHL. The majority of patients attending Audiology services are adults with presbyacusis and it is therefore important to evaluate evidence of any treatment effect of AT in aural rehabilitation. Ideally this review would seek to appraise evidence of neurophysiological effects of AT so as to verify whether it does induce change in the CAS. However, due to the absence of such studies on this particular patient group, the outcome measure of speech discrimination, as a behavioural indicator of treatment effect is used instead. A review of available research was used to inform an argument for or against using AT in rehabilitative clinical practice. Six studies were identified and although the preliminary evidence indicates an improvement gained from a range of AT paradigms, the treatment effect size was modest and there remains a lack of large-sample RCTs. Future investigation into the efficacy of AT needs to employ neurophysiological studies using auditory evoked potentials in hearing-impaired adults in order to explore effects of AT on the CAS.

Individual's recollections of their experiences in eye clinics and understanding of their eye condition:results from a survey of visually impaired people in Britain

Background/aims: Network 1000 is a UK-based panel survey of a representative sample of adults with registered visual impairment, with the aim of gathering information about people’s opinions and circumstances. Method: Participants were interviewed (Survey 1, n = 1007: 2005; Survey 2, n = 922: 2006/07) on a range of topics including the nature of their eye condition, details of other health issues, use of low vision aids (LVAs) and their experiences in eye clinics. Results: Eleven percent of individuals did not know the name of their eye condition. Seventy percent of participants reported having long-term health problems or disabilities in addition to visual impairment and 43% reported having hearing difficulties. Seventy one percent reported using LVAs for reading tasks. Participants who had become registered as visually impaired in the previous 8 years (n = 395) were asked questions about non-medical information received in the eye clinic around that time. Reported information received included advice about ‘registration’ (48%), low vision aids (45%) and social care routes (43%); 17% reported receiving no information. While 70% of people were satisfied with the information received, this was lower for those of working age (56%) compared with retirement age (72%). Those who recalled receiving additional non-medical information and advice at the time of registration also recalled their experiences more positively. Conclusions: Whilst caution should be applied to the accuracy of recall of past events, the data provide a valuable insight into the types of information and support that visually impaired people feel they would benefit from in the eye clinic.