The case for LACE: Listening and auditory communication enhancement training

Hearing Journal

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 32-40

  Sweetow, Robert W ^a   Henderson Sabes, Jennifer ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AUDITORY MEMORY; COGNITION; COMPUTER SYSTEM; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEARING; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LINGUISTICS; NEUROSCIENCE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT EDUCATION; PILOT STUDY; SEMANTICS; SKILL; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TREATMENT PLANNING;

EID: 1642565878     PISSN: 07457472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.hj.0000292371.26838.91     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Irvine DR, Rajan R, Brown M: Injury- and use-related plasticity in adult auditory cortex. Audiol Neuro-otol 2001;6(4):192-195.
2. Hayes EA, Warrier CM, Nicol TG, et al.: Neural plasticity following auditory training in children with learning disabilities. Clin Neurophysiol 2003;114(5):912-918.
3. Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T, et al.: Central auditory plasticity: Changes in the N1-P2 complex after speech-sound training. Ear Hear 2001;22(2):79-90.
4. Recanzone GH, Schreiner CE, Merzenich MM: Plasticity in the frequency representation of primary auditory cortex following discrimination training in adult owl monkeys. J Neurosci 1993;13(1):87-103.
5. Pearsons KS, Bennett R, Fidell S: Speech Levels in Various Noise Environments. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1977.
6. Flynn M: Sailing out of the windless sea of monosyllables. Hear Rev 2003;10(4):24-30,78.
7. Kiessling J, Pichora-Fuller MK, Gatehouse S, et al.: Candidature for and delivery of audiological services: Special needs of older people. Int J Audiol 2003;42(2):S92-S101.
8. Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) for Windows. Eden Prairie, MN: Maico Diagnostics.
9. QuickSIN Speech in Noise Test. Elk Grove Village, IL: Etymotic Research.
10. Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL: Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 1977;61:1337-1351.
11. Erber NP: Adaptive assessment of adult sentence perception. Ear Hear 1992;13:58-60.
12. Goldman R, Fristoe M, Woodcock RW: Goldman-Fristoe-Woodcock Auditory Memory Tests. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, 1974.
13. Dichonics Sonido, Inc. 1811 Plum Street, Valdosta, GA 31601
14. Flynn MC, Dowell RC: Speech perception in a communicative context: An investigation using question/answer pairs. J Sp Lang Hear Res 1999;42:540-552.
15. Gagne JP, Tugby KG, Michaud J: Development of a speechreading test on the utilization of contextual cues (STUCC): Preliminary findings with normal hearing subject. J Acad Rehab Audiol 1991;24:157-170.
16. Dyalog Communication Analysis. West Bloomfield, MI: Parrot Software.
17. CSLU Toolkit. Beaverton, OR: Center for Spoken Language Understanding.
18. Ciuffreda KJ: The scientific basis for and efficacy of optometric vision therapy in nonstrabismic accommodative and vergence disorders. Optometry 2002;73(12):735-762.
19. Gunther VK, Schafer P, Holzer BJ, Kemmler GW: Long-term improvements in cognitive performance through computer-assisted cognitive training: A pilot study in a residential home for older people. Aging Ment Health 2003;7(3):200-206.
20. Merzenich M, Wright B, Jenkins W, et al.: Cortical plasticity underlying perceptual, motor, and cognitive skill development. Implications for neurorehabilitation. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 1996;61:1-8.