SLPRCTCoDAS2026

Musical auditory training and cognitive auditory training: effects on the perception of tinnitus disorder.

Christine Grellmann Schumacher, Brenda Larissa de Souza da Silva, Roberta Liberalesso and 3 others

PMID 41950112

WHAT IT FOUND

All three groups improved, including the placebo group that watched silent films while listening to Mozart.

Cognitive auditory training also reduced tinnitus loudness, but it did not beat musical training, and the study was too small to be sure.

Key findings

01All three groups, including the placebo group, improved on tinnitus annoyance and on the handicap questionnaire by the end of the study.

02After treatment, cognitive auditory training scored better than placebo on annoyance (p = 0.050) and loudness (p = 0.021), and better than musical training on loudness (p = 0.011); the two active trainings did not differ on annoyance or on the handicap questionnaire.

03The musical training group's better handicap score than placebo after treatment cannot be read as an effect of the training, because that group already had lower handicap scores before treatment started.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only 29 people finished, split unevenly across the groups (13, 8 and 8), and 10 more dropped out before the end. The authors call this a preliminary study, and differences this small between groups are easy to produce by chance. The musical training group started with much less tinnitus handicap than the placebo group (median 31 versus 66), so its better handicap score after treatment cannot be attributed to the training. The placebo group also improved on annoyance and handicap. Everyone in the study had weeks of one-to-one contact with a researcher, and that attention may explain much of the improvement in all three groups rather than the specific exercises. People were allocated by the order they arrived for care rather than by a genuine random draw, and the groups ended up different sizes. Nothing measured the brain or the hearing pathway directly, for example auditory evoked potentials. Only rating scales and a questionnaire were used. Outcomes were measured two weeks after treatment ended, so the study says nothing about whether any change lasted. The reporting of the loudness comparison between the two training groups is inconsistent: the paper reports a significant difference (p = 0.011) and then states that the same comparison showed no difference (p = 1.000).

Declared interests

The authors declare nothing to declare for financial support and report no conflicts of interest. The funding statement appears in both English and Portuguese with the same content.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that auditory training is what helped these patients. The placebo group, who watched silent films and listened to Mozart with the same weekly face-to-face contact, also improved on annoyance and quality of life, and the two active trainings did not differ from each other on annoyance or handicap. Do not read the musical training group's better handicap score than placebo as an effect of musical training either, because that group started with lower handicap scores before treatment began.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →