Personal Sound Amplification Products Research Articles

Access to health service and hearing rehabilitation for adult and older adults during the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil

Introduction: Hearing loss is a common disability in the world population and contributes to difficulty in verbal communication and reduced quality of life, highlighting the importance of early identification, rehabilitation and audiological monitoring of this disability to mitigate its consequences. During the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictive measures reduced the service capacity of hearing health services and made it difficult to seek help to solve problems related to adaptation to personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), being a barrier in the rehabilitation process of hearing loss. Aim: To characterize PSAPs users and the initial hearing rehabilitation process for adults and elderly people and verify the factors associated with the return to hearing monitoring consultations in the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study with adults and elderly people: elderly users of an outpatient hearing health service who return for a scheduled hearing monitoring consultation in the initial period of the implementation of restrictive measures of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Results: Most participants were able to return to the hearing monitoring clinic, the majority of whom were elderly, female and vaccinated against COVID-19. There was a higher prevalence of adequate adaptation to the PSAPs. There was no statistical association between variables related to adaptation to PSAPs, COVID-19 and mental health and return to hearing monitoring consultation. Conclusion: Factors related to adaptation to PSAPs, COVID-19 or mental health did not influence the return to hearing monitoring consultation in the present investigation.

Consumer and audiologist perspectives on hearables: a qualitative study

Objective We aimed to explore (i) what adults with hearing difficulties want and need from hearables, which we defined as any non-medical personal sound amplification product, and (ii) what hearing care professionals think about hearables. Design This was an exploratory, qualitative study conducted using separate focus groups with adults with hearing difficulties and audiologists. Data were analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. Study sample Participants were 12 adults with hearing difficulties and 6 audiologists. Results Adults with hearing difficulties expressed desire for trustworthy information and support, described evaluating hearables and other devices according to diverse personal criteria, and expressed willingness to vary their budget according to product quality. Audiologists expressed views that hearables are an inferior product but useful tool, that it is not necessarily their role to assist with hearables, that hearables are a source of uncertainty, and that the provision of hearables by audiologists is not currently practical. Conclusion Adults with hearing difficulties may have complex reasons for considering hearables and may desire a high level of clinical support in this area. Ongoing research into the efficacy and effectiveness of hearables is needed together with research into effective strategies to incorporate hearables into clinical practice.

Comparative Effectiveness of Personal Sound Amplification Products Versus Hearing Aids for Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial.

This study compared hearing outcomes with use of personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) and hearing aids (HAs) in patients with moderate to moderately severe unilateral hearing loss. Thirty-nine participants were prospectively enrolled, and randomly assigned to use either one HA (basic or premium type) or one PSAP (basic or high-end type) for the first 8 weeks and then the other device for the following 8 weeks. Participants underwent a battery of examinations at three visits, including sound-field audiometry, word recognition score (WRS), speech perception in quiet and in noise, real-ear measurement, and self-report questionnaires. Functional gain was significantly higher with HAs across all frequencies (P < 0.001). While both PSAPs and HAs improved WRS from the unaided condition, HAs were superior to PSAPs. The speech recognition threshold in quiet conditions and signal-to-noise ratio in noisy conditions were significantly lower in the HA-aided condition than in the PSAP-aided condition, and in the PSAP-aided condition than in the unaided condition. Subjective satisfaction also favored HAs than PSAPs in questionnaires, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids, and Host Institutional Questionnaire. While PSAPs provide some benefit for moderate to moderately severe unilateral hearing loss, HAs are more effective. This underscores the potential role of PSAPs as an accessible, affordable first-line intervention in hearing rehabilitation, particularly for individuals facing challenges in accessing conventional HAs.

The Hearing Aid Effect across Diverse African Populations and Various Hearing Device Modalities

Plain Language SummaryThis study aimed to investigate the “hearing aid effect” and its association with socioeconomic factors in African communities. The study used a cross-sectional design with 322 participants from rural and urban areas, who rated photographs of seven different hearing devices worn by a peer model. The devices included standard behind-the-ear hearing aid (BTE HA) with an ear mould, mini BTE HA with a slim tube (ST), in-the-canal (ITC) HA, AirPod, receiver in canal (RIC), completely-in-canal (CIC) HA, and Personal Sound Amplification Product (PSAP). The participants rated the devices on eight attributes, including attractiveness, age, success, hardworking, trustworthiness, intelligence, friendliness, and education. No hearing aid effect was observed across all participants with device ratings ranging between neutral and positive. There was a preference for less visible, conventionally styled devices. Socioeconomic variables such as educational attainment and geographical location influence perceptions of hearing devices emphasizing the importance of taking these aspects into account when prescribing hearing devices.

Comparing Direct-to-Consumer Devices to Hearing Aids: Amplification Accuracy for Three Types of Hearing Loss.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized regulations for over-the-counter hearing aids (OTC-HAs) on August 17, 2022. Little is known about the comparative performance of OTC-HAs and prescription HAs. This study compared amplification accuracy of prescription HAs and direct-to-consumer devices (DTCDs, including personal sound amplification products [PSAPs] and OTC-HAs). Eleven devices were programmed to meet prescriptive targets in an acoustic manikin for three degrees of hearing loss. Devices consisted of high- and low-end HAs, PSAPS, and OTC-HAs. Each was tested, and deviations from target measured with an HA analyzer at every combination of 10 frequencies and low-, average-, and high-level inputs. Accuracy was compared using a multilevel Poisson model with device-specific intercepts controlling for input level, frequency, and device type. For mild-moderate hearing loss, deviations from targets were not statistically different between high- and low-end HAs, but PSAPs (5.50 dB, SE = 0.92 dB) and OTC-HAs (8.83 dB, SE = 1.10 dB) had larger differentials. For flat moderate hearing loss, compared to high-end HAs, average differentials were larger for all device types at all input levels and frequencies (Low HA: 3.82 dB, SE = 1.10 dB; PSAP: 9.24 dB, SE = 1.22 dB; OTC-HA: 8.61 dB, SE = 1.19 dB). For mild sloping to severe hearing loss, compared to high-end HAs, OTC-HAs (9.72 dB, SE = 1.20 dB) and PSAPs (7.34 dB, SE = 1.07 dB) had larger differentials and significant variability at the highest and lowest frequencies. Half (three) of the PSAPs and OTC-HAs met most targets within ±5 dB. DTCDs were unable to meet prescriptive targets for severe types of hearing loss but could meet them for mild hearing loss. This study provides an examination of current hearing devices. More research is needed to determine whether meeting prescriptive targets provides any benefit in the outcomes and performance with DTCD devices.

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Non-Self-Fitting Presets Compared to Prescription Hearing Aid Fittings and a Personal Sound Amplification Product.

In this study, we compare the efficacy and effectiveness of gain-frequency responses of evidence-based presets developed by our lab for over-the-counter hearing aids to conventional National Acoustic Laboratories' nonlinear fitting procedure, version 2 (NAL-NL2) gain-frequency response and to gain-frequency response of a personal sound amplification product (PSAP). We hypothesized that the hearing aids with our presets would perform better than a PSAP with poor frequency response and comparably to the hearing aid with NAL-NL2 frequency response. We used a single-blinded, randomized cross-over design to compare audibility, speech recognition, sound quality, listening effort, and subjective preferences in 37 participants in laboratory settings and following field trials. The presets developed in our lab showed comparable outcomes to the hearing aids with NAL-NL2 gain-frequency response in most measured domains. Performance with the presets was better than the PSAP gain-frequency response in the domains of listening effort and sound quality in laboratory testing and speech recognition in our real-world measures. We also found that most participants (54.05%) preferred our presets over the PSAPs and were willing to pay significantly more to purchase the hearing aids with our presets. Our evidence-based presets have better outcomes than a PSAP with a single, poorly suited frequency response while performing comparably to the clinical best-practice National Acoustic Laboratories condition.

Prioritizing research on over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids for age-related hearing loss.

Hearing aids are the most commonly used treatment for people with age-related hearing loss, however, hearing aid uptake is low, primarily due to high cost of the device, stigma, and a lack of perceived need. To address accessibility and affordability issues, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration created a new over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aid category. Various types of hearing devices are available for both individuals with hearing loss and for those with normal hearing, as hearing enhancement devices. Hearing aids (i.e., prescription hearing aids, self-fitting OTC hearing aids, and pre-set OTC hearing aids) are regulated by the FDA. The purpose of this article is to (a) provide a summary of existing research on direct-to-consumer (DTC) hearing devices such as Personal Sound Amplification Products (PSAPs) that informs OTC service delivery models; (b) provide an update on existing and ongoing randomized controlled trials on currently marketed OTC hearing aids; and (c) highlight the need for immediate research on OTC hearing aids and service delivery models to inform policy and clinical care. It remains to be seen what effect OTC hearing aids have on improving the uptake of hearing aids by individuals with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. However, there is scant research on all aspects of OTC hearing aids that are currently on the market. We conclude that high quality independent research must be prioritized to supplement evidence provided by the OTC hearing aid manufacturers for regulatory approval purposes.

Smartphone-bundled earphones as personal sound amplification products in adults with sensorineural hearing loss.

Given the low prevalence of hearing aid use among individuals with hearing loss due to their high costs and social stigma, personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) may serve as alternatives with adequate hearing compensation and greater accessibility. This study examined the electroacoustic features of hearing aids and selected smartphone-bundled earphones, specifically AirPods, as PSAPs, and compared hearing performances among adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss when aided with each hearing assistive device. Our results indicated that AirPods Pro met four out of five PSAP standards. No significant differences were found regarding speech perception between AirPods Pro and hearing aids in quiet but not with the presence of background noises. AirPods Pro may have the potential to be a hearing assistive device for adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. More research is needed to investigate the safety and feasibility of using earphones bundled with other smartphones as PSAPs.

Perception and expectations of personal sound amplification products in Korea: A hospital-based, multi-center, cross-sectional survey.

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to investigate current perception and expected price of personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) and to analyze influencing factors through multi-center hospital-based surveys of outpatients, caregivers, and hearing experts.MethodsA multi-center exploratory cross-sectional study was conducted in two groups of respondents with two separate surveys: 1) a perception survey of patients and caregivers who visited an otorhinolaryngology outpatient clinic in 5 general hospitals and 2) an opinion survey of hearing specialists about the expected price of PSAPs. A total of 197 outpatient visitors responded to the perception survey, and 42 hearing specialists responded to the opinion survey.ResultsOverall perception score (18 questions) was 3.04 (95% CI, 3.00–3.09). When 5 categories of perception (knowledge, needs, cost, expectation, and information categories) were analyzed, cost and expectation showed the highest scores of 3.33 (95% CI, 3.21–3.44) and 3.33 (95% CI, 3.27–3.40), respectively, and needs showed the lowest score of 2.23 (95% CI, 1.97–2.49). The ≥ 60-year-old group showed significantly higher perception of PSAPs (P = 0.002), and the individuals with greater severity of subjective hearing loss showed significantly higher perception of PSAPs (P = 0.002). The expected price of PSAPs of the outpatient visitors was 933.9 USD (95% CI, 811.9–1056.0) per ear. Mean expected price of PSAPs of hearing specialists was 291.3 USD (95% CI, 238.2–344.3) per ear.ConclusionThe perception rate of PSAPs was very low, and there was a discrepancy in the expected price of PSAPs between patients/caregivers and hearing experts. Hearing specialists should make effort to improve perception of PSAPs.

Comparison of personal sound amplification products and conventional hearing aids for patients with hearing loss: A systematic review with meta-analysis

SummaryBackgroundHearing loss is a common morbidity that requires a hearing device to improve quality of life and prevent sequelae, such as dementia, depression falls, and cardiovascular disease. However, conventional hearing aids have some limitations, including poor accessibility and unaffordability. Consequently, personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) are considered a potential first-line alternative remedy for patients with hearing loss. The main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of PSAPs and conventional hearing aids regarding hearing benefits in patients with hearing loss.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases and reference lists were searched from inception to January 12, 2022. Studies including randomised, controlled trials; nonrandomised, controlled trials; or observational studies comparing PSAPs and hearing aids with regard to hearing gain performance (e.g., speech intelligence) were considered eligible. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42021267187).FindingsOf 599 records identified in the preliminary search, five studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. A total of 124 patients were divided into the PSAP group and the conventional hearing aid group. Five studies including seven groups compared differences for speech intelligence in the signal-noise ratio (SNR) on the hearing in noise test (HINT) between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids. The pooled results showed nonsignificant differences in speech intelligence (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.47; P = .41; I2=65%), sound quality (SMD, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.87 to 0.13; P = .15; I2=77%) and listening effort (SMD 0.02; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.29; P = .86; I2=32%). Nonsignificant results were also observed in subsequent analyses after excluding patients with moderately severe hearing loss. Complete sensitivity analyses with all of the possible combinations suggested nonsignificant results in most of the comparisons between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids.InterpretationPSAPs are potentially beneficial as conventional hearing aids are in patients with hearing loss. The different features among PSAPs should be considered for patients indicated for hearing devices.FundingThis work was supported by grants from Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST-10-2622-8-075-001) and Veterans General Hospitals and University System of Taiwan Joint Research Program (VGHUST111-G6-11-2 and VGHUST111c-140).

Real-World Effectiveness of Wearable Augmented Reality Device for Patients With Hearing Loss: Prospective Study

BackgroundHearing loss limits communication and social activity, and hearing aids (HAs) are an efficient rehabilitative option for improving oral communication and speech comprehension, as well as the psychosocial comfort of people with hearing loss. To overcome this problem, over-the-counter amplification devices including personal sound amplification products and wearable augmented reality devices (WARDs) have been introduced.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of WARDs for patients with mild to moderate hearing loss.MethodsA total of 40 patients (18 men and 22 women) with mild to moderate hearing loss were enrolled prospectively in this study. All participants were instructed to wear a WARD, Galaxy Buds Pro (Samsung Electronics), at least 4 hours a day for 2 weeks, for amplifying ambient sounds. Questionnaires including the Korean version of the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (K-APHAB) and the Korean adaptation of the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (K-IOI-HA) were used to assess personal satisfaction in all participants. Audiologic tests, including sound field audiometry, sound field word recognition score (WRS), and the Korean version of hearing in noise test (K-HINT), were administered to 14 of 40 patients. The tests were performed under two conditions: unaided and aided with WARDs.ResultsThe mean age of the participants was 55.4 (SD 10.7) years. After 2 weeks of the field trial, participants demonstrated a benefit of WARDs on the K-APHAB. Scores of 3 subscales of ease of communication, reverberation, and background noise were improved significantly (P<.001). However, scores regarding aversiveness were worse under the aided condition (P<.001). K-IOI-HA findings indicated high user satisfaction after the 2-week field trial. On audiologic evaluation, the K-HINT did not show significant differences between unaided and aided conditions (P=.97). However, the hearing threshold on sound field audiometry (P=.001) and the WRS (P=.002) showed significant improvements under the aided condition.ConclusionsWARDs can be beneficial for patients with mild to moderate hearing loss as a cost-effective alternative to conventional hearing aids.

Hearing and Speech Perception for People With Hearing Loss Using Personal Sound Amplification Products.

BackgroundHearing loss (HL) is the most common chronic disease and has been linked to negative health outcomes. Hearing aids (HAs) are regarded as the gold standard for HL management, however, the adoption rate of HAs is relatively low for various reasons. With this background, hearing devices, such as personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) received significant attention as an alternative to conventional HAs. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of PSAPs in patients with mild to moderately severe HL.MethodsNineteen patients with mild hearing loss (MHL), 23 with moderate hearing loss (MDHL), and 15 with moderately severe hearing loss (MSHL) participated in the study. Electroacoustic analysis, simulated real-ear measurements (REMs), and three clinical evaluations were implemented.ResultsAll devices satisfied the electroacoustic tolerances. All devices provided sufficient gain for MHL and MDHL audiograms. However, in MSHL audiogram, the gains of PSAPs were insufficient, especially for high frequencies. In terms of clinical evaluations, sound-field audiometry showed significant improvements between aided and unaided thresholds in all groups for all devices (P < 0.001). Significant improvements of word recognition scores were only shown for HAs between aided and unaided conditions. The Korean version of the Hearing In Noise Test did not show any consistent findings for all devices and groups.ConclusionCertain PSAPs are beneficial for improving hearing and speech perception in patients with HL. Well-chosen PSAPs could be an alternative hearing rehabilitation option for these patients.

Clinical Comparison of a Hearing Aid, a Personal Sound Amplification Product, and a Wearable Augmented Reality Device

Clinical Comparison of a Hearing Aid, a Personal Sound Amplification Product, and a Wearable Augmented Reality Device

Feasibility of Personal Sound Amplification Products in Patients With Moderate Hearing Loss: A Pilot Study.

ObjectivesThis study was conducted to investigate the electroacoustic characteristics of personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), to identify whether PSAPs provide adequate gain and output for three common hearing loss (HL) configurations, and to compare the benefits of a representative PSAP (RPSAP) and a conventional hearing aid (HA) for clinical hearing outcomes as a pilot study.MethodsThe study comprised three phases: electroacoustic analysis, simulated real-ear measurements (REMs), and clinical hearing experiments. Electroacoustic analysis and simulated REMs were performed for three basic PSAPs (BeethoSOL, EarJJang, and Geniesori2) and three high-end PSAPs (Hearing Able, Olive Smart Ear, and SoriIn) using the Aurical Hearing Instrument Test box with a 2-mL coupler. Four electroacoustic characteristics (maximum output sound pressure level at 90 dB SPL, frequency range, equivalent input noise, and total harmonic distortion) were investigated. By simulated REMs, appropriate levels of the six PSAPs for three common HL configurations (mild-to-moderate high-frequency HL, moderate to moderately severe sloping HL, and moderate flat HL) were determined. Clinical experiments compared the performance of RPSAP to HA, both of which were fitted by audiologists using REMs. Clinical experiments were administered using functional gain, a word recognition test, and the Korean version of the Hearing in Noise Test in six participants with bilateral moderate sensorineural HL.ResultsThe two high-end devices met all tolerances. One basic and two high-end PSAPs showed appropriate levels for three common HL configurations. In the clinical experiments, the RPSAP showed better performance than unaided, but slightly worse than HA under all test conditions.ConclusionCertain PSAPs met all specified tolerances for electroacoustic analysis and approximated prescriptive targets in well-controlled laboratory conditions. The pilot clinical experiments explored the possibility that the RPSAP could serve as a hearing assistive device for patients with moderate HL.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: Smartphone-Connected Listening Devices.

In this article, we review the current literature assessing the application and benefits of connected hearing technologies, as well as their potential to improve accessibility to and affordability of hearing healthcare. Over the past decade, there has been a proliferation of hearing devices that connect wirelessly to smartphone technologies via Bluetooth. These devices include (1) smartphone-connected hearing aids that must be obtained from a licensed audiologist or hearing aid dispenser; (2) direct-to-consumer devices, such as personal sound amplification products; and (3) smartphone-based hearing aid applications (or apps). Common to all these connected devices is that they permit the user to self-adjust and customize their device programs via an accompanying smartphone app. There has been a growing body of literature assessing connected hearing devices in adults living with hearing loss. Overall, the evidence to date supports the notion that all connected hearing devices can improve accessibility to and affordability of amplification. It is unclear, however, whether connected technologies are a clinically effective alternative to traditional hearing aids. Even so, the impact of connectivity is especially pertinent given the sudden disruption caused by the recent global COVID-19 pandemic, whereby connected technologies enable patients to receive treatment through mobile-based, tele-audiology platforms.

Auditory Measures for the Next Billion Users.

A range of new technologies have the potential to help people, whether traditionally considered hearing impaired or not. These technologies include more sophisticated personal sound amplification products, as well as real-time speech enhancement and speech recognition. They can improve user's communication abilities, but these new approaches require new ways to describe their success and allow engineers to optimize their properties. Speech recognition systems are often optimized using the word-error rate, but when the results are presented in real time, user interface issues become a lot more important than conventional measures of auditory performance. For example, there is a tradeoff between minimizing recognition time (latency) by quickly displaying results versus disturbing the user's cognitive flow by rewriting the results on the screen when the recognizer later needs to change its decisions. This article describes current, new, and future directions for helping billions of people with their hearing. These new technologies bring auditory assistance to new users, especially to those in areas of the world without access to professional medical expertise. In the short term, audio enhancement technologies in inexpensive mobile forms, devices that are quickly becoming necessary to navigate all aspects of our lives, can bring better audio signals to many people. Alternatively, current speech recognition technology may obviate the need for audio amplification or enhancement at all and could be useful for listeners with normal hearing or with hearing loss. With new and dramatically better technology based on deep neural networks, speech enhancement improves the signal to noise ratio, and audio classifiers can recognize sounds in the user's environment. Both use deep neural networks to improve a user's experiences. Longer term, auditory attention decoding is expected to allow our devices to understand where a user is directing their attention and thus allow our devices to respond better to their needs. In all these cases, the technologies turn the hearing assistance problem on its head, and thus require new ways to measure their performance.

Impact of Hearing Loss and Universal Face Masking in the COVID-19 Era

Impact of Hearing Loss and Universal Face Masking in the COVID-19 Era

MarkeTrak 10: History and Methodology.

MarkeTrak has been conducted on a regular schedule for over 30 years to take the pulse of the hearing health care market and of consumers with hearing loss. The current version, MarkeTrak 10 (MT10), builds on the successful completion of MarkeTrak 9, with the same two objectives: to estimate hearing difficulty, hearing aid usage, and adoption of hearing aids in the United States and to gain insights into the consumer's journey through the hearing health care delivery system. In addition, MarkeTrak 10 added additional questions regarding use and satisfaction with Personal Sound Amplification Products (PSAPs) by both owners and nonowners of hearing aids.

Emerging Technologies, Market Segments, and MarkeTrak 10 Insights in Hearing Health Technology.

Hearing health care is rapidly changing through innovation in technology, services, business models, and product categories. The introduction of hearables and over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids in particular will change the market for hearing help and the role of the hearing care professionals (HCPs). This article focuses on how these products will be differentiated from HCP-fit hearing aids through their ability to address the unmet needs of different consumer segments within the population of people with hearing dysfunction. The unmet hearing needs of each segment are discussed, and the size of each segment estimated, demonstrating a large potential market for hearables and a smaller potential market for hearing aids than has been previously mentioned in the literature. The results from MarkeTrak 10's survey of consumers' attitudes toward an OTC model are reviewed, showing that approximately half of both hearing aid owners and nonowners are uncomfortable doing hearing- and hearing aid-related tasks on their own without the assistance of an HCP and would be unlikely to purchase OTC hearing aids if available today. MarkeTrak data are also shown that demonstrate that the majority of hearing aid and personal sound amplification product owners believe that the HCP helped or would have helped with their hearing devices. Finally, challenges to OTC hearing aids becoming successful are discussed.

Auditory training methods in children with psychiatric diagnosis: an integrative literature review

ABSTRACT Purpose: to identify auditory training approaches used in the pediatric population with psychiatric diagnoses and to characterize the contexts in which the intervention took place, as well as protocols and discernment of the results. Methods: a search was carried out in four databases, using the fixed terms "auditory training" OR "auditory rehabilitation". Regarding the sampling, there was a considerable range of diagnoses, signs and symptoms, including the most common ones. Articles published until August 2018 whose population did not present hearing loss were selected; articles whose subjects had made use of any personal sound amplification products, presented otitis or had any isolated diagnosis of auditory processing disorder, were excluded. Results: 16 articles out of the 103 references found, met the inclusion criteria. The samplings studied were children and adolescents with learning, language or reading disorders, dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder and schizophrenia. The bottom-up intervention and the combined approach (bottom-up and top-down), in the formal context, were the most frequent approaches, whose results led to the improvement in linguistic, metalinguistic and auditory skills. The amount and frequency of sessions, as well as their duration varied. Conclusion: the heterogeneity of auditory training techniques diversified the results. However, it seems there is a potential for recommending auditory training in the reviewed population.