Table 3.

Frequency transposition.

Citation	Comparison	Acclimatization	Outcome category	Measure	Sub-measure	Effect size [95% CI]a	p value
Auriemmo et al. (2009)	FT (+ training)	FT measures at:   Baseline	Speech recognition	Nonsense   syllable test	30 dB HL   consonants	NR/NC	FT after 6 wks training > CP at baseline, p < .05
	CP (+ training)	3 wks					FT after 6 wks training >   CP after 3 weeks training, p < .05
		6 wks CP measures at:   Baseline			30 dB HL   vowels	NR/NC	All other comparisons NS FT after 3 wks training >   CP at baseline, p < .05
		3 wks			50 dB HL   consonants	NR/NC	All other comparisons NS All comparisons NS
					50 dB HL   vowels	NR/NC	All comparisons NS
		FT: measures at:   3 wks	Speech and language	/s/ and /z/   production	Reading	NR/NC	FT after 6 wks training >   CP after 3 wks, p < .05
		6 wks					All other comparisons NS
		CP: measures at:   3 wks			Conversation	NR/NC	FT after 6 wks training >   CP after 3 wks, p < .05
		FT: 6 wks CP: 3 wks	Self- or parent-report	% env HF   sounds detect		NR/NC	All other comparisons NS   p < .05 (favors FT)
Smith et al. (2009)	FT	FT: 12 wks	Speech recognition	Phoneme   perception		NR/NC	p = .003 (favors FT)
	CP (previous HAs)	CP: Duration of   use unknown		Word   perception		NR/NC	p = .01 (favors FT)
		FT: 24 wks CP: Duration of   use unknown	Speech and language	Articulation   test		rpb = .66 [–.33, .96]b	p = .01 (favors FT)

Note. env = environmental; FT = frequency transposition; HF = high frequency; Hz = Hertz; NC = not calculable; NS = not significant; wks = weeks.

^aPositive effect sizes indicate that the direction of the effect favors frequency transposition. Negative effect sizes favor conventional processing.

^bEffect size, r_pb (point-biserial correlation coefficient), calculated from individual participant data provided in the study.