Table 3.
Study parameters and results
| Study | Sample Size | Comparison Groups? | Demographic variables reported | Variables used in Analyses | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdi [16] | 23 | No | AI DT MOU |
No quantitive analyses | No perceptual data analyzed; case studies relaying teacher ratings for music skills and attitude |
| Chen[17] | 13 | 14 control (no training) | AI AMT AT DT Gender HD MOU OC |
AI AT* DT* Gender* HD MOU Gender* |
Pitch ranking of 49 tone pairs, individual accuracy range of 9.5–92.5%; NSD by pitch interval size, accuracy significantly correlated with DT (r=.389) for younger age (<6 yrs.), and older AT (>6yrs); boys more accurate, but more boys in older AT group |
| Fu [18] | 6 | No | AI AMT (none) AT DT Etiology Gender HD MOU OD Oral communication |
AI AT DT |
Highly variable with chance to nearly perfect; group data significantly improved melodic contour recognition at 4 wks. (mean improvement 53.1%). No significant impact of age at testing, or age when implanted; asymptote at 4 wks. |
| Innes-Brown [19] | 6 CI users | 9 NH, 5 HA users | AI AMT (all) AT DT Gender HD Residual hearing |
Residual hearing * for pitch, timbre | Baseline and posttests: CI users significantly less accurate than NH, HA users on pitch patterns, timbre recognition, NSD for rhythm patterns; residual hearing predictive of scores; percussive instruments easier to recognize; Training effect: CIs showed improved pitch, timbre, but NS change after training; observational narratives from teachers indicate enhanced engagement, interest in music |
| Petersen [20] | N=11 | 10 normal hearing age mates; testing, but no training | AMT (all but 1) DT HD MOU |
NSD | |
| Rocca [21] | > 100 children over 22 yrs. | NA | No statistical analyses | No formal testing; Narratives reported improved listening, singing reflecting the stages of musical development in music curriculum | |
| Torppa [22] | 21 CI: 7 who fit music training criteria 12 (None) | 21 NH children, matched for age, gender, music activities; music training not quantified | Training correlated with improved F0 discrimination, stress perception, prosody, auditory memory | ||
| Yucel [23] | N=9 | N=9 no music training | NSD for speech tests between training and control group; parent rated (1–5) SD for music group in awareness of sound, melody, dynamic, rhythmic change, emotional response of increased music skills at end of 2nd yr; Highly variable results on all measures; interest, age of implantation not significant factor |
AI= age implanted
AMT=Additional music training beyond study
AT=age at time of testing
DT=Duration of training
HD=hearing device (HA, CI type, strategy) information
MOU= months of CI use
OD=onset of deafness
*
p<.05 or better; += statistically significant only for participants < 6 yrs. Age
NSD=no significant difference