RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1811560
Computer-based Auditory Training in New Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Review of Training Outcomes in More than 100 Patients in the Outpatient Setting
Funding None to declare.

Abstract
Objective
To review research on the effectiveness of computer-based auditory training (CBAT) in new adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients.
Methods
Studies by the primary author on auditory training in new adult CI recipients were reviewed, focusing on a database of auditory training data in >100 patients followed over their first-year post-activation.
Results
CBAT, as used in a standard outpatient setting, affords benefits compared to other commonly employed exercises/programs. In new adult CI users, CBAT was associated with greater improvement in CNC words, AzBio sentences, and Cochlear Implant Quality of Life-35 (CIQOL-35) Profile scores at 3 months post-activation compared to CI recipients who did not train or used other resources. By 12 months, patients showed similar improvement in speech recognition scores, regardless of training modality; however, patients who used CBAT continued to show significantly greater improvement in CIQOL global and all domain scores compared to CBAT nonusers. This benefit was noted regardless of whether CBAT was started before or after 3 months post-activation. No demographic/lifestyle factors, audiological measures, or pre-CI CIQOL/CIQOL-Expectations scores were associated with CBAT use.
Conclusion
CBAT during the first-year post-activation may contribute to early gains in CI speech recognition and to persistent improvements in functional abilities, as measured via the CIQOL-35 profile, in new implant recipients. Consideration of specific recommendations for the use of CBAT resources may be valuable, given the minimal risk, ease of access, and affordability of these programs.
Publikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
16. September 2025
© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Gaylor JM, Raman G, Chung M. et al. Cochlear implantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 139 (03) 265-272
- 2 McRackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL. et al. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope 2018; 128 (04) 982-990
- 3 Zeng FG. Celebrating the one millionth cochlear implant. JASA Express Lett 2022; 2 (07) 077201
- 4 Firszt JB, Holden LK, Skinner MW. et al. Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (04) 375-387
- 5 Gifford RH, Shallop JK, Peterson AM. Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurootol 2008; 13 (03) 193-205
- 6 Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB. et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (03) 342-360
- 7 Walia A, Shew MA, Kallogjeri D. et al. Electrocochleography and cognition are important predictors of speech perception outcomes in noise for cochlear implant recipients. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 3083
- 8 Dornhoffer J, Liu YF, Zhao EE, Camposeo EL, Meyer TA, McRackan TR. Factors that influence second-side cochlear implant speech recognition outcomes. Otol Neurotol 2021; 42 (03) e279-e285
- 9 Zhan KY, Lewis JH, Vasil KJ. et al. Cognitive functions in adults receiving cochlear implants: predictors of speech recognition and changes after implantation. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41 (03) e322-e329
- 10 Manrique MJ, Espinosa JM, Huarte A, Molina M, García-Tapia R, Artieda J. Implantes cocleares en personas postlinguales: resultados durante los primeros cinco anos de evolucion [Cochlear implants in post-lingual persons: results during the first five years of the clinical course]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 1998; 49 (01) 19-24
- 11 Dillon MT, Buss E, Adunka MC. et al. Long-term speech perception in elderly cochlear implant users. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 139 (03) 279-283
- 12 Boothroyd A. Adult aural rehabilitation: what is it and does it work?. Trends Amplif 2007; 11 (02) 63-71
- 13 Harris MS, Capretta NR, Henning SC, Feeney L, Pitt MA, Moberly AC. Postoperative rehabilitation strategies used by adults with cochlear implants: a pilot study. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2016; 1 (03) 42-48
- 14 Fu QJ, Galvin J, Wang X, Nogaki G. Effects of auditory training on adult cochlear implant patients: a preliminary report. Cochlear Implants Int 2004; 5 (Suppl. 01) 84-90
- 15 Dornhoffer JR, Chidarala S, Patel T. et al. Systematic review of auditory training outcomes in adult cochlear implant recipients and meta-analysis of outcomes. J Clin Med 2024; 13 (02) 400
- 16 Dornhoffer JR, Shannon C, Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Dubno JR, McRackan TR. Computer-based auditory training by new adult cochlear implant recipients is associated with durable improvements in cochlear implant quality of life. Ear Hear 2024; 45 (04) 905-914
- 17 Moberly AC, Vasil K, Baxter J, Klamer B, Kline D, Ray C. Comprehensive auditory rehabilitation in adults receiving cochlear implants: a pilot study. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2020; 5 (05) 911-918
- 18 Völter C, Stöckmann C, Schirmer C, Dazert S. Tablet-based telerehabilitation versus conventional face-to-face rehabilitation after cochlear implantation: prospective intervention pilot study. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2021; 8 (01) e20405
- 19 Dornhoffer JR, Reddy P, Ma C, Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Dubno JR, McRackan TR. Use of auditory training and its influence on early cochlear implant outcomes in adults. Otol Neurotol 2022; 43 (02) e165-e173
- 20 Gagné JP, Parnes LS, LaRocque M, Hassan R, Vidas S. Effectiveness of an intensive speech perception training program for adult cochlear implant recipients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100 (9 Pt 1): 700-707
- 21 Bernstein CM, Brewer DM, Bakke MH. et al. Maximizing cochlear implant outcomes with short-term aural rehabilitation. J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32 (03) 144-156
- 22 Ihler F, Blum J, Steinmetz G, Weiss BG, Zirn S, Canis M. Development of a home-based auditory training to improve speech recognition on the telephone for patients with cochlear implants: a randomised trial. Clin Otolaryngol 2017; 42 (06) 1303-1310
- 23 Magits S, Boon E, De Meyere L. et al. Comparing the outcomes of a personalized versus nonpersonalized home-based auditory training program for cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2023; 44 (03) 477-493
- 24 Miller JD, Watson CS, Kistler DJ, Wightman FL, Preminger JE. Preliminary evaluation of the speech perception assessment and training system (SPATS) with hearing-aid and cochlear-implant users. Proc Meet Acoust 2008; 2 (01) 1-9
- 25 Shafiro V, Sheft S, Kuvadia S, Gygi B. Environmental sound training in cochlear implant users. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015; 58 (02) 509-519
- 26 Borel S, Dupré S, de Bergh M, Sterkers O, Mosnier I, Ferrary E. Rehabilitation of telephone communication in cochlear-implanted adults. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2020; 137 (05) 381-386
- 27 Reis M, McMahon CM, Távora-Vieira D, Humburg P, Boisvert I. Effectiveness of computer-based auditory training for adult cochlear implant users: a randomized crossover study. Trends Hear 2021 ;25:23312165211025938
- 28 Henshaw H, Ferguson MA. Efficacy of individual computer-based auditory training for people with hearing loss: a systematic review of the evidence. PLoS One 2013; 8 (05) e62836
- 29 Dornhoffer JR, Lohse CM, Tamati TN, Moberly AC, Carlson ML. Current practices and opinions on auditory training in adult cochlear implant recipients. Am J Otolaryngol 2024; 45 (04) 104339
- 30 Rayes H, Al-Malky G, Vickers D. Systematic review of auditory training in pediatric cochlear implant recipients. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (05) 1574-1593
- 31 Warner-Czyz AD, Roland Jr JT, Thomas D, Uhler K, Zombek L. American cochlear implant alliance task force guidelines for determining cochlear implant candidacy in children. Ear Hear 2022; 43 (02) 268-282
- 32 Dornhoffer JR, Kinkhabwala CM, Chidarala S. et al. Patient-related factors do not predict use of computer-based auditory training by new adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 2023; 44 (02) e81-e87
- 33 Dornhoffer JR, Shannon C, Hernandez-Herrara GA, Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Dubno JR, McRackan TR. When to start computer-based auditory training after cochlear implantation: effects on quality of life and speech recognition. Otol Neurotol 2024; 45 (09) 1023-1029
- 34 Sweetow RW, Sabes JH. The need for and development of an adaptive Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) program. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (08) 538-558
- 35 Tillman TW, Carhart R. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66–55. Tech Rep SAM-TR. 1966: 1-12
- 36 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM. et al. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (01) 112-117
- 37 McRackan TR, Hand BN, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Development Consortium. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): development of a profile instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a global measure (CIQOL-10 Global). J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (09) 3554-3563
- 38 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press; 2013
- 39 Ma C, Fried J, Nguyen SA. et al. Longitudinal speech recognition changes after cochlear implant: systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2023; 133 (05) 1014-1024
- 40 McRackan TR, Hand BN, Chidarala S, Dubno JR. Understanding patient expectations before implantation using the cochlear implant quality of life-expectations instrument. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022; 148 (09) 870-878
- 41 Holder JT, Dwyer NC, Gifford RH. Duration of processor use per day is significantly correlated with speech recognition abilities in adults with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41 (02) e227-e231
- 42 Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Conrad CA, Zwolan TA. Datalogging statistics and speech recognition during the first year of use in adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40 (07) e686-e693
- 43 Fyfe ER, Borriello G, Merrick M. A developmental perspective on feedback: how corrective feedback influences children's literacy, mathematics, and problem solving. Educ Psychol 2023; 58 (03) 130-145
- 44 Nassiri AM, Holcomb MA, Perkins EL. et al. Catchment profile of large cochlear implant centers in the United States. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022; 167 (03) 545-551