Auditory Training: Predictors of Success and Optimal Training Paradigms

  • Erin M. Ingvalson
  • Patrick C. M. Wong


Researchers have identified speech perception training paradigms that hold potential for training CI users. However, there is extensive outcome variability, likely because some learners have a greater initial ability to perceive the acoustic differences among the to-be-learned speech sounds. For those listeners without such ability, simplifying the training set results in improved performance. We suggest future efforts could reduce outcome variability by assessing individual abilities pre-training and then assigning training sets based on ability level.


Individual differences Speech perception Language learning Training Auditory perception 


  1. Best CT, Tyler MD. Non-native and second-language speech perception: commonalities and complementarities. Language experience in second language speech learning: In honor of James Emil Flege. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2007. p. 13–34.Google Scholar
  2. Bradlow AR, Pisoni DB, Akahane-Yamada R, Tohkura Y. Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/ and /l/: IV. Some effects of perceptual learning on speech production. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;101(4):2299–310.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradlow AR, Akahane-Yamada R, Pisoni DB, Tohkura Y. Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/ and /l/: long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Percept Psychophys. 1999;61(5):977–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandrasekaran B, Sampath PD, Wong PCM. Individual variability in cue-weighting and lexical tone learning. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(1):456–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N, Wong PCM. Human inferior colliculus activity relates to individual differences in spoken language learning. J Neurophysiol. 2011;107(5):1325–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Eisner F, McGettigan C, Faulkner A, Rosen S, Scott SK. Inferior frontal gyrus activation predicts individual differences in perceptual learning of cochlear-implant simulations. J Neurosci. 2010;30(21):7179–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Emmorey K, Allen JS, Bruss J, Schenker N, Damasio H. A morphometric analysis of auditory brain regions in congenitally deaf adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(17):10049–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Flege JE. Assessing constraints on second-language segmental production and perception. In: Meyer A, Schiller N, editors. Phonetic and phonology in language comprehension and production, differences, and similarities. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2003. p. 319–55.Google Scholar
  9. Fu Q-J, Galvin J, Wang X, Nogaki G. Moderate auditory training can improve speech performance of adult cochlear implant patients. Acoust Res Lett Online. 2005;6(3):106–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaser C, Schlaug G. Brain structures differ between musicians and non-musicians. J Neurosci. 2003;23(27):9240–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Golestani N, Zatorre RJ. Individual differences in the acquisition of second language phonology. Brain Lang. 2009;109(2–3):55–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Golestani N, Paus T, Zatorre RJ. Anatomical correlates of learning novel speech sounds. Neuron. 2002;35:997–1010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Golestani N, Molko N, Dehaene S, LeBihan D, Pallier C. Brain structure predicts the learning of foreign speech sounds. Cereb Cortex. 2006;17(3):575–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ingvalson EM, Holt LL, McClelland JL. Can native Japanese listeners learn to differentiate /r–l/ on the basis of F3 onset frequency? Biling (Camb Engl). 2012;15(2):255–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ingvalson EM, Lee B, Fiebig P, Wong PCM. The effects of short-term computerized speech-in-noise training on post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013a;56:81–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ingvalson EM, Barr AM, Wong PCM. Poorer phonetic perceivers show greater benefit in phonetic-phonological speech learning. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013b;56(3):1045–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Iverson P, Evans BG. Learning English vowels with different first-language vowel systems II: auditory training for native Spanish and German speakers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;126(2):866.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Iverson P, Hazan V, Bannister K. Phonetic training with acoustic cue manipulations: a comparison of methods for teaching English /r/-/l/ to Japanese adults. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;118(5):3267–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Iverson P, Pinet M, Evans BG. Auditory training for experienced and inexperienced second-language learners: Native French speakers learning English vowels. Appl Psycholinguist. 2011;33(01):145–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhl PK, Stevens EB, Hayashi A, Deguchi T, Kiritani S, Iverson P. Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Dev Sci. 2006;9(2):F13–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lengeris A, Hazan V. The effect of native vowel processing ability and frequency discrimination acuity on the phonetic training of English vowels for native speakers of Greek. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(6):3757.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lively SE, Logan JS, Pisoni DB. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. II: the role of phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993;94(3):1242–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Lively SE, Pisoni DB, Yamada RA, Tohkura Y, Yamada T. Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. III. Long-term retention of new phonetic categories. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;96(4):2076–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Logan JS, Lively SE, Pisoni DB. Training Japanese listeners to identify English/r/ and /l/: a first report. J Acoust Soc Am. 1991;89(2):874–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Nishi K, Kewley-Port D. Training Japanese listeners to perceive American English vowels: influence of training sets. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007;50(6):1496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nishi K, Kewley-Port D. Nonnative speech perception training using vowel subsets: effects of vowels in sets and order of training. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51(6):1480.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Penhune VB, Cismaru R, Dorsaint-Pierre R, Petitto LA, Zatorre RJ. The morphometry of auditory cortex in the congenitally deaf measured using MRI. NeuroImage. 2003;20(2):1215–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Perrachione TK, Lee J, Ha LYY, Wong PCM. Learning a novel phonological contrast depends on interactions between individual differences and training paradigm design. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011;130(1):461–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Pruitt JS, Jenkins JJ, Strange W. Training the perception of Hindi dental and retroflex stops by native speakers of American English and Japanese. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(3):1684.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schneider P, Sluming V, Roberts N, Scherg M, Goebel R, Specht HJ, et al. Structural and functional asymmetry of lateral Heschl’s gyrus reflects pitch perception preference. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8(9):1241–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Shannon RV, Zeng F-G, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science. 1995;270(5234):303–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Trapp NL, Bohn O-S. Training Danish listeners to identify word-final/s/ and /z/: generalization of training and its effect on production accuracy. In: James A, Leather J, editors. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second-Language Speech. University of Klagenfurt; 2000. p. 343–50.Google Scholar
  33. Tsao FM, Liu HM, Kuhl PK. Speech perception in infancy predicts language development in the second year of life: a longitudinal study. Child Dev. 2004;75(4):1067–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang Y, Spence MM, Jongman A, Sereno JA. Training American listeners to perceive Mandarin tones. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;106(6):3649–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Werker JF, Tees RC. Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult cross-language speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am. 1984;75(6):1866–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wong PCM, Perrachione TK. Learning pitch patterns in lexical identification by native English-speaking adults. Appl Psycholinguist. 2007;28(04):565–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wong PCM, Perrachione TK, Parrish TB. Neural characteristics of successful and less successful speech and word learning in adults. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007;28(10):995–1006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wong PCM, Warrier CM, Penhune VB, Roy AK, Sadehh A, Parrish TB, et al. Volume of left Heschl’s gyrus and linguistic pitch learning. Cereb Cortex. 2008;18(4):828–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wu J-L, Yang H-M, Lin Y-H, Fu Q-J. Effects of computer-assisted speech training on Mandarin-speaking hearing-impaired children. Audiol Neurootol. 2007;12(5):307–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Communication Science and DisordersFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck SurgeryFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Linguistics and Modern LanguagesThe Chinese University of Hong KongHong Kong S.A.R.China

Personalised recommendations