Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol.  2012 Apr;5(Suppl 1):S1-S5.

The Listening Cube: A Three Dimensional Auditory Training Program

• Leo DR
• Ilona A
• Marleen B
• Josepha J
• Marianne H
• Ria P
• Hilde V
• Yvette V

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
Here we present the Listening Cube, an auditory training program for children and adults receiving cochlear implants, developed during the clinical practice at the KIDS Royal Institute for the Deaf in Belgium. We provide information on the content of the program as well as guidance as to how to use it.
METHODS
The Listening Cube is a three-dimensional auditory training model that takes the following into consideration: the sequence of auditory listening skills to be trained, the variety of materials to be used, and the range of listening environments to be considered. During auditory therapy, it is important to develop training protocols and materials to provide rapid improvement over a relatively short time period. Moreover, effectiveness and the general real-life applicability of these protocols to various users should be determined.
RESULTS
Because this publication is not a research article, but comes out of good daily practice, we cannot state the main results of this study. We can only say that this auditory training model is very successful. Since the first report was published in the Dutch language in 2003, more than 200 therapists in Belgium and the Netherlands followed a training course elected to implement the Listening Cube in their daily practice with children and adults with a hearing loss, especially in those wearing cochlear implants.
CONCLUSION
The Listening Cube is a tool to aid in planning therapeutic sessions created to meet individual needs, which is often challenging. The three dimensions of the cube are levels of perception, practice material, and practice conditions. These dimensions can serve as a visual reminder of the task analysis and of other considerations that play a role in structuring therapy sessions.

Keyword

Rehabilitation; Auditory training; Cochlear implantation

MeSH Terms

Adult
Belgium
Child
Cochlear Implantation
Cochlear Implants
Hearing Loss
Humans
Netherlands
Publications

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 The three dimensional Listening Cube.

• 

  Fig. 2 Dimension 1: levels of perception within the Listening Cube.

• 

  Fig. 3 Dimension 2: practice material within the Listening Cube.

• 

  Fig. 4 Dimension 3: practice conditions within the Listening Cube.

Reference

1. Waltzman SB, Roland JT Jr, Cohen NL. Delayed implantation in congenitally deaf children and adults. Otol Neurotol. 2002; 5. 23(3):333–340. PMID: 11981391.

2. Waltzman SB. Cochlear implants: current status. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2006; 9. 3(5):647–655. PMID: 17064249.

3. Kuhn-Inacker H, Shehata-Dieler W, Muller J, Helms J. Bilateral cochlear implants: a way to optimize auditory perception abilities in deaf children? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2004; 10. 68(10):1257–1266. PMID: 15364496.

4. Svirsky MA, Teoh SW, Neuburger H. Development of language and speech perception in congenitally, profoundly deaf children as a function of age at cochlear implantation. Audiol Neurootol. 2004; Jul-Aug. 9(4):224–233. PMID: 15205550.

5. Tait ME, Nikolopoulos TP, Lutman ME. Age at implantation and development of vocal and auditory preverbal skills in implanted deaf children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007; 4. 71(4):603–610. PMID: 17239961.

6. Nicholas JG, Geers AE. Will they catch up? The role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe to profound hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007; 8. 50(4):1048–1062. PMID: 17675604.

7. David EE, Ostroff JM, Shipp D, Nedzelski JM, Chen JM, Parnes LS, et al. Speech coding strategies and revised cochlear implant candidacy: an analysis of post-implant performance. Otol Neurotol. 2003; 3. 24(2):228–233. PMID: 12621337.

8. Davidson LS, Geers AE, Blamey PJ, Tobey EA, Brenner CA. Factors contributing to speech perception scores in long-term pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 2011; 2. 32(1 Suppl):19S–26S. PMID: 21832887.

9. Heydebrand G, Mauze E, Tye-Murray N, Binzer S, Skinner M. The efficacy of a structured group therapy intervention in improving communication and coping skills for adult cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol. 2005; 5. 44(5):272–280. PMID: 16028790.

10. Schow RL, Nerbonne MA. Boston MA, editor. Introduction to audiologic rehabilitation. 2007. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

11. Robinson K, Summerfield AQ. Adult auditory learning and training. Ear Hear. 1996; 6. 17(3 Suppl):51S–65S. PMID: 8807276.

12. Dawson PW, Clark GM. Changes in synthetic and natural vowel perception after specific training for congenitally deafened patients using a multichannel cochlear implant. Ear Hear. 1997; 12. 18(6):488–501. PMID: 9416451.

13. Fu QJ, Galvin J, Wang X, Nogaki G. Effects of auditory training on adult cochlear implant patients: a preliminary report. Cochlear Implants Int. 2004; 9. 5(Suppl 1):84–90. PMID: 18792249.

14. Hines T. A demonstration of auditory top-down processing. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999; 2. 31(1):55–56. PMID: 10495833.

15. De Filippo CL, Scott BL. A method for training and evaluating the reception of ongoing speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 1978; 4. 63(4):1186–1192. PMID: 649877.

16. Rosen S, Faulkner A, Wilkinson L. Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 12. 106(6):3629–3636. PMID: 10615701.

17. Gentner TQ, Margoliash D. Neuronal populations and single cells representing learned auditory objects. Nature. 2003; 8. 07. 424(6949):669–674. PMID: 12904792.

18. Fu QJ, Galvin JJ 3rd. Perceptual learning and auditory training in cochlear implant recipients. Trends Amplif. 2007; 9. 11(3):193–205. PMID: 17709574.

19. Bammens M, De Raeve L, Haesevoets M, Jans J, Pans R, Vandistel H. The Listening Cube: a 3-dimentional auditory training program. 2008. Innsbruck: MED-EL.

20. Corthals P. Hoortraining: internal training course for professionals of KIDS. 1981. Hasselt, Belgium: KIDS Royal Institute for the Deaf.

21. De Raeve L. Auditory rehabilitation therapy guideline for optimizing the benefits of binaural hearing: a cochlear white paper. 2008. Basel: Cochlear Europe.

22. Erber NP. Auditory training. 1982. Washington: Alexandria Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.

23. Peters BR, Wyss J, Manrique M. Worldwide trends in bilateral cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope. 2010; 5. 120(Suppl 2):S17–S44. PMID: 20422715.

24. MED-EL. Bridge to better communication: early step of the way [Internet]. c2010. Innsbruck: MED-EL;Available from: http://www.medel.com/int/show/index/id/112/title/Rehabilitation?PHPSESSID=nnrcbodup0i4k48p9mam6j6lc6.