Age, general cognition (MoCA), visual working memory, and hearing loss showed no significant association with the extent of training-induced change, and the three-way modality-by-AWM-by-hearing-loss interaction was not significant¶

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? Age, MoCA, AWM, VWM and hearing loss were not significantly associated with training-induced SNR change (all p ≥ 0.214; hearing loss p = 0.214 in Table 3). → Vanessa Frei & Nathalie Giroud 2025 q3 i? The three-way interaction between training modality, hearing loss and auditory working memory 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

Null findings from the linear mixed model on training-induced SNR change that included modality, age, MoCA, AWM, VWM and PTA as fixed effects. Table 3 prints coefficient estimates on z-scored predictors with SEs, t and p (e.g. Age −0.01, MoCA 0.14, AWM −0.03, VWM 0.03, PTA 0.15, p = 0.214 to 0.958), but no standardized effect size, so no impact is coded.

"Neither age, MoCA scores, AWM, VWM nor hearing loss were signi ficantly associated (p > 0.214) with the extent of trainin g-induced change"

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 moderation model also tested the three-way interaction of training modality, hearing loss (PTA) and AWM, which was not significant, Δχ²(1) = 0.225, p = 0.635. Only the two-way interactions with modality were significant.

"The three-way interaction between training modality, hearing loss, and auditory working memory was not signi ficant (Δχ²(1) = 0.225,p = 0.635)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Auditory Processing — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
• Visual Processing — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Lower auditory working memory capacity moderates the training benefit: participants 1 SD below the mean improve significantly more after immersive than auditory training — 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 — reports the opposite
• Speech-in-noise perception improves significantly after a short-term immersive auditory-cognitive training, but not after an audio-only training session — related
• Visual enhancement is not significantly associated with hearing level, age, visual working memory or processing speed, and learning rate in speechreading training is not significantly associated with those or with hearing aid use or training intensity — related