Central auditory processing and self-perception questionnaire after acoustically controlled auditory training in individuals with mild traumatic brain injury.
Ana Karina Lima Buriti, Cyntia Barbosa Laureano Luiz, Laís Rocha de Barros Oliveira and 2 others
PMID 38695432WHAT IT FOUND
In 10 people with mild TBI, some hearing-test scores and self-reported listening were better after 10 sound-booth training sessions.
Self-reported gains matched some test gains, but not all. There was no control group, so training cannot be shown to have caused the changes.
Key findings
01After training, the study reported better scores on speech-in-noise in the left ear, staggered spondaic word in the right ear, sound localization, and Random Gap Detection Test.
02Self-perception responses concentrated in the considerable and significant improvement categories, especially hearing in noise, attention and alertness, and self-esteem.
03People who reported better following instructions also had better after-training scores on sentence identification with competing message, nonverbal sequential memory, Random Gap Detection Test, and duration pattern.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 10 participants were studied, all from one clinic, so the findings may not apply to other patients with mild TBI. There was no control group, no comparison treatment, and no random assignment, so the study cannot show that acoustically controlled auditory training caused the changes. The participants were 4 to 12 months after injury, and the study did not compare them with people who received no training, so time-related changes could affect the results. Many tests and questionnaire items were analyzed, and some relationships were positive while others were negative, so the pattern is not simple. The questionnaire asked for perceived improvement after training, not a separate baseline report, so responses may not be independent of the training experience. The authors note the small sample and limited literature as constraints on the findings.
Declared interests
The work was supported by CAPES code 001. No company funding or competing interest is reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that acoustically controlled auditory training caused the improvements. The study had no control group, only 10 participants, and compared each person before and after training, so changes could also reflect the time period after injury or repeated testing.