SLPOtherTrends in hearing2018

Vibro-Tactile Enhancement of Speech Intelligibility in Multi-talker Noise for Simulated Cochlear Implant Listening.

Mark D Fletcher, Sean R Mills, Tobias Goehring

PMID 30222089

WHAT IT FOUND

Fingertip vibration carrying speech envelope and voicing cues improved keyword scores in simulated cochlear implant speech in multi-talker noise, especially after three days of brief training.

It was tested in eight normal-hearing listeners, not actual cochlear implant users.

Key findings

01Mean correct keyword responses increased with tactile stimulation, from 55.7% to 61.1% before training and from 61.5% to 72.3% after training.

02The vibration benefit became significant after training, while the pre-training benefit did not meet the corrected significance threshold.

03Individual responses varied, with the largest improvement 17.8% and the largest reduction 2.2%.

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 eight normal-hearing adults took part, so this is a small laboratory finding. The participants were not cochlear implant users; they heard a simulation of cochlear implant listening. The vibration was delivered to the right index fingertip, which may not be practical for everyday use. Training was given only with vibration on, which could make the vibration condition look better. The benefit was tested at each participant's own speech reception threshold, and the authors say more work is needed at lower signal-to-noise ratios.

Declared interests

The study was funded by Action on Hearing Loss.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the 10.8% post-training improvement as evidence that vibration helps actual cochlear implant users. The study tested eight normal-hearing listeners using a cochlear implant simulation, and the pre-training difference did not meet the corrected significance threshold.

Read it on PubMed →