Home › Research › Prevention trials
Immediate improvement of speech-in-noise perception through multisensory stimulation via an auditory to tactile sensory substitution
Cieśla K, Wolak T, Lorens A, Heimler B, Skarżyński H, Amedi A.. Restorative neurology and neuroscience, 2019-01-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Background Hearing loss is becoming a real social and health problem. Its prevalence in the elderly is an epidemic. The risk of developing hearing loss is also growing among younger people. If left untreated, hearing loss can perpetuate development of neurodegenerative diseases, including dementia. Despite recent advancements in hearing aid (HA) and cochlear implant (CI) technologies, hearing impaired users still encounter significant practical and social challenges, with or without aids. In particular, they all struggle with understanding speech in challenging acoustic environments, especially in presence of a competing speaker. Objectives In the current proof-of-concept study we tested whether multisensory stimulation, pairing audition and a minimal-size touch device would improve intelligibility of speech in noise. Methods To this aim we developed an audio-to-tactile sensory substitution device (SSD) transforming low-frequency speech signals into tactile vibrations delivered on two finger tips. Based on the inverse effectiveness law, i.e., multisensory enhancement is strongest when signal-to-noise ratio is lowest between senses, we embedded non-native language stimuli in speech-like noise and paired it with a low-frequency input conveyed through touch. Results We found immediate and robust improvement in speech recognition (i.e. in the Signal-To-Noise-ratio) in the multisensory condition without any training, at a group level as well as in every participant. The reported improvement at the group-level of 6 dB was indeed major considering that an increase of 10 dB represents a doubling of the perceived loudness. Conclusions These results are especially relevant when compared to previous SSD studies showing effects in behavior only after a demanding cognitive training. We discuss the implications of our results for development of SSDs and of specific rehabilitation programs for the hearing impaired either using or not using HAs or CIs. We also discuss the potential application of such a set-up for sense augmentation, such as when learning a new language.
Key findings
- Despite recent advancements in hearing aid (HA) and cochlear implant (CI) technologies, hearing impaired users still encounter significant practical and social challenges, with or without aids.
- Results We found immediate and robust improvement in speech recognition (i.e. in the Signal-To-Noise-ratio) in the multisensory condition without any training, at a group level as well as in every participant.
- Conclusions These results are especially relevant when compared to previous SSD studies showing effects in behavior only after a demanding cognitive training.
- We discuss the implications of our results for development of SSDs and of specific rehabilitation programs for the hearing impaired either using or not using HAs or CIs.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Restorative neurology and neuroscience) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31006700) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Cieśla, K., Wolak, T., Lorens, A., Heimler, B., Skarżyński, H., & Amedi, A. (2019). Immediate improvement of speech-in-noise perception through multisensory stimulation via an auditory to tactile sensory substitution. Restorative neurology and neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3233/rnn-190898
Vancouver
Cieśla K, Wolak T, Lorens A, Heimler B, Skarżyński H, Amedi A. Immediate improvement of speech-in-noise perception through multisensory stimulation via an auditory to tactile sensory substitution. Restorative neurology and neuroscience. 2019. doi:10.3233/rnn-190898. PMID: 31006700.
BibTeX
@article{ciesla2019-31006700,
author = {Cieśla, K. and Wolak, T. and Lorens, A. and Heimler, B. and Skarżyński, H. and Amedi, A.},
title = {{Immediate improvement of speech-in-noise perception through multisensory stimulation via an auditory to tactile sensory substitution}},
journal = {Restorative neurology and neuroscience},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.3233/rnn-190898},
pmid = {31006700},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/rnn-190898}
}
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also in Prevention trials
86 studies in the library are filed under Prevention trials with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Prevention trials hub.