Speech Perception Training in Children: The Retention of Benefits and Booster Training
Authors: Spehar Brent , Tye-Murray Nancy , Mauzé Elizabeth , Sommers Mitchell , Barcroft Joe 
Published: July 2023

Objectives:
Speech perception training can be a highly effective intervention to improve perception and language abilities in children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Most studies of speech perception training, however, only measure gains immediately following training. Only a minority of cases include a follow-up assessment after a period without training. A critical unanswered question was whether training-related benefits are retained for a period of time after training has stopped. A primary goal of this investigation was to determine whether children retained training-related benefits 4 to 6 weeks after they completed 16 hours of formal speech perception training. Training was comprised of either auditory or speechreading training, or a combination of both. Also important is to determine if “booster” training can help increase gains made during the initial intensive training period. Another goal of the study was to investigate the benefits of providing home-based booster training during the 4- to 6-week interval after the formal training ceased. The original investigation (Tye-Murray et al. 2022) compared the effects of talker familiarity and the relative benefits of the different types of training. We predicted that the children who received no additional training would retain the gains after the completing the formal training. We also predicted that those children who completed the booster training would realize additional gains.

Design:
Children, 6 to 12 years old, with hearing loss who had previously participated in the original randomized control study returned 4 to 6 weeks after the conclusion to take a follow-up speech perception assessment. The first group (n = 44) returned after receiving no formal intervention from the research team before the follow-up assessment. A second group of 40 children completed an additional 16 hours of speech perception training at home during a 4- to 6-week interval before the follow-up speech perception assessment. The home-based speech perception training was a continuation of the same training that was received in the laboratory formatted to work on a PC tablet with a portable speaker. The follow-up speech perception assessment included measures of listening and speechreading, with test items spoken by both familiar (trained) and unfamiliar (untrained) talkers.

Results:
In the group that did not receive the booster training, follow-up testing showed retention for all gains that were obtained immediately following the laboratory-based training. The group that received booster training during the same interval also maintained the benefits from the formal training, with some indication of minor improvement.

Conclusions:
Clinically, the present findings are extremely encouraging; the group that did not receive home-based booster training retained the benefits obtained during the laboratory-based training regimen. Moreover, the results suggest that self-paced booster training maintained the relative training gains associated with talker familiarity and training type seen immediately following laboratory-based training. Future aural rehabilitation programs should include maintenance training at home to supplement the speech perception training conducted under more formal conditions at school or in the clinic.