Of the studies identified as measuring speech perception or speech recognition, 10 were non-randomized treatment studies and 3 were randomized controlled trials. Due to their quasi-randomized study designs, De Miranda et al. 2008 and Stecker et al. 2006 were considered as non-randomized treatment studies. Of the thirteen studies, 3 were conducted in Portuguese Brazilian in Brazil. The rest were conducted in English in the United States. All articles were published in English between 1987 and 2012.
I. Non-randomized treatment studies
Study characteristics are presented in Table 3. Results of risk of bias according to components assessed are presented in Table 7.
Study characteristics: participants
The total number of participants from the …show more content…
In Experiment 2 of Burk et al. 2006, the main effect of training on word-recognition was significant. Although some effects of training were retained in Experiment 3 of the same study, training on words did not tranfer to fluent speech. In Burk et al. 2008, training generalized to unfamiliar talkers, but not to untrained words or untrained keywords in running speech. De Miranda et al. 2008 reported a signifianct difference in results for all three measures in the experimental group. However, they reported observing no difference between the second and third assessments. In De O. Marques et al. 2004, the authors found an improvement in speech perception for monosyllable and dissyllable words. Humes et al. 2009 reported largest improvements for frequent words after training. A smaller, but significant improvement was reported for all other measures: VAST, CID everyday sentences and frequent phrases. Megale et al. 2010 recorded a statistical significance between both groups for signal-noise and dichotic digits. Rubenstein et al. 1987 noted statistically significant improvements, but the amount of change was small. The authors reported that there was no difference between the synthetic and synthetic-analytic treatment groups. They observed that improvements were retained at the 4 week follow-up measure. Rubenstein et al. 1993 concluded that there was no significant difference in speech recognition performance between the interactive video group and the non-interactive video group. In Experiment 1 of Stecker et al. 2006, overall improvement in NST scores was significantly greater for the immediate training group than for the delayed training group who had only benefited from amplification. The results for RSPIN were not statistically significant. In Experiment 2 of the same study, training significantly improved performance in the participants who were all experienced hearing aid
I. Non-randomized treatment studies
Study characteristics are presented in Table 3. Results of risk of bias according to components assessed are presented in Table 7.
Study characteristics: participants
The total number of participants from the …show more content…
In Experiment 2 of Burk et al. 2006, the main effect of training on word-recognition was significant. Although some effects of training were retained in Experiment 3 of the same study, training on words did not tranfer to fluent speech. In Burk et al. 2008, training generalized to unfamiliar talkers, but not to untrained words or untrained keywords in running speech. De Miranda et al. 2008 reported a signifianct difference in results for all three measures in the experimental group. However, they reported observing no difference between the second and third assessments. In De O. Marques et al. 2004, the authors found an improvement in speech perception for monosyllable and dissyllable words. Humes et al. 2009 reported largest improvements for frequent words after training. A smaller, but significant improvement was reported for all other measures: VAST, CID everyday sentences and frequent phrases. Megale et al. 2010 recorded a statistical significance between both groups for signal-noise and dichotic digits. Rubenstein et al. 1987 noted statistically significant improvements, but the amount of change was small. The authors reported that there was no difference between the synthetic and synthetic-analytic treatment groups. They observed that improvements were retained at the 4 week follow-up measure. Rubenstein et al. 1993 concluded that there was no significant difference in speech recognition performance between the interactive video group and the non-interactive video group. In Experiment 1 of Stecker et al. 2006, overall improvement in NST scores was significantly greater for the immediate training group than for the delayed training group who had only benefited from amplification. The results for RSPIN were not statistically significant. In Experiment 2 of the same study, training significantly improved performance in the participants who were all experienced hearing aid