Goals and outcomes of FM use by adults

Hearing Journal

Volumn 57, Issue 11, 2004, Pages 28-35

  Chisolm, Theresa Hnath ^a   McArdle, Rachel ^b   Abrams, Harvey ^b   Noe, Colleen M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; AUDIOLOGY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FREQUENCY MODULATION; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; NOISE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SATISFACTION; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION;

EID: 10244253830     PISSN: 07457472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.HJ.0000324404.87638.38     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Carhart R, Tillman TW: Interaction of competing speech signals with hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol 1970;91:273-279.
2. Killion MC: New thinking on hearing in noise: A generalized articulation index. Sem Hear 2002;23:57-75.
3. Hawkins D: Comparisons of speech recognition in noise by mildly-to-profoundly hearing-impaired children using hearing aids and FM systems, J Sp Hear Dis 1984;49:409-418.
4. Fabry D: Noise reduction with FM systems in FM/EM mode. Ear Hear 1994;13:82-86.
5. Boothroyd A: Hearing aid accessories for adults: The remote FM microphone. Ear Hear 2004;25(1):22-33.
6. Valente M, Crandall CC, Lewis S, Enrietto J: Improving speech recognition in noise: Directional microphone and FM systems. In Fabry D, Johnson CD, eds., ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions. Proceeding for the First International FM Conference. Great Britain: Cambrian Printers, 2004:31-38.
7. Jerger J, Chmiel R, Florin E, et al.: Comparison of conventional amplification and an assistive listening device in elderly persons. Ear Hear 1996;17:490-504.
8. Sanford MJ, Kierkhaefer B: Adults use of FM systems: Subjective benefit by adult users. Hear Rev 2002;9(3): 24-33.
9. Ermann H: Personal communication. Phonak Corporation, 2003.
10. Noe CM, McArdle R, Chisolm TH, et al.: FM technology use in adults with significant hearing loss I: Candidacy. In Fabry D, Johnson CD, eds., ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions. Proceeding for the First International FM Conference. Great Britain: Cambrian Printers, 2004:113-119.
11. Kochkin S: MarkeTrak VI: 10-year customer satisfaction trends in the US hearing instrument market. Hear Rev 2002;9(10):14-25,46.
12. Chisolm TH, Noe CM, McArdle R, et al.; FM technology use in adults with significant hearing loss, Part II: Outcomes. In Fabry D, Johnson CD, eds., ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions. Proceeding for the First International FM Conference. Great Britain: Cambrian Printers, 2004: 141-146.
13. Demorest M, Erdman S: Development of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. J Sp Hearing Dis 1987; 52:129-143.
14. Kochkin S: Introducing MarkeTrak: A consumer tracking survey of the hearing instrument market. Hear J 1990;43(3):17-27.
15. Dillon H, James A, Ginis J: Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. JAAA 1997;8:27-43.
16. Byrne D, Cotton S: Evaluation of the National Acoustic Laboratories' new hearing aid selection procedure. J Sp Hear Res 1988;31:178-186.
17. McArdle R: Use of FM technology to improve telephone communication. Sem Hear (in press).