Immersive presentation keeps comprehension performance stable across a training session while auditory-only performance decreases toward the end¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-26 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Comprehension performance was significantly better in the immersive than the auditory training session (main effect of modality). → Vanessa Frei & Nathalie Giroud 2025 q3 i? Comprehension performance at the end of the auditory training was significantly lower than at the end of the immersive training, while within-modality decline from first to last block was not significant. → Vanessa Frei & Nathalie Giroud 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Vanessa Frei & Nathalie Giroud 2025¶

Vanessa Frei & Nathalie Giroud. (2025). Immersive auditory-cognitive training improves speech-in-noise perception in older adults with varying hearing and working memory. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00306-5

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Generalized linear mixed model on comprehension responses (correct vs incorrect) during the training sessions of the cross-over study. A significant main effect of modality, Δχ²(1) = 8.077, p < 0.004, favored the immersive session.

"The model revealed a signi ficant main effect of modality ( Δχ²(1) = 8.077, p <0 . 0 0 4 ) , suggesting a signi ficantly better performance during the immersive training session (averaged performance across the first and last block), compared to the auditory training session"

Vanessa Frei & Nathalie Giroud 2025 (2)¶

Vanessa Frei & Nathalie Giroud. (2025). Immersive auditory-cognitive training improves speech-in-noise perception in older adults with varying hearing and working memory. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00306-5

q3 · i? · causal · r2

The modality-by-block interaction, Δχ²(1) = 4.463, p = 0.035, indicated performance dropped by the end of the auditory session but not the immersive session; within-modality first-to-last block changes were not significant (p = 0.098 and p = 0.832).

"the training revealed a signi ficant interaction between modality and block ( Δχ²(1) = 4.463, p = 0.035), indicating signi ficantly decreased performance at the end of the auditory training compared to the end of the immersive training"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Auditory Processing — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Speech-in-noise perception improves significantly after a short-term immersive auditory-cognitive training, but not after an audio-only training session — related
• More pronounced hearing loss moderates the training benefit: participants with PTA 1 SD above the mean improve significantly more after immersive than auditory training — related
• Immersion principle: people do not necessarily learn better in 3D immersive virtual reality than with a corresponding 2D desktop presentation (d = -0.10 across 9 tests) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Immersion in virtual reality adds extraneous load yet can boost transfer, enjoyment, and motivation while leaving retention unaffected — a broader claim this one bears on
• Lower auditory working memory capacity moderates the training benefit: participants 1 SD below the mean improve significantly more after immersive than auditory training — related