Effects of frequency modulation (FM) transmitter microphone directivity on speech perception in noise

American Journal of Audiology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 16-22

  Lewis, M Samantha ^a,b   Crandell, Carl C ^a   Kreisman, Nicole V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CENTER FOR REHABILITATIVE AUDITORY RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Assistive technology; Rehabilitation of hearing imparied; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; PERCEPTION DEAFNESS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ENVIRONMENT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 10244276421     PISSN: 10590889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1059-0889(2004/004)     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bess, F., Sinclair, J., & Riggs, D. (1984). Group amplification in schools for the hearing impaired. Ear & Hearing, 5, 138-144.
2. Blair, J. (1977). Effects of amplification, speech reading, and classroom environment on reception of speech. Volta Review, 79, 443-449.
3. Crandell, C. (1991). Individual differences in speech recognition ability: Implications for hearing aid selection. Ear & Hearing, 5, 100-107.
4. Crandell, C., & Boney, S. (in press). Adaptive speech recognition procedures in the clinical setting. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.
5. Crandell, C., & Smaldino, J. (2001). Improving classroom acoustics: Utilizing hearing-assistive technology and communication strategies in the educational setting. The Volta Review, 101(5), 47-62.
6. Crandell, C., & Smaldino, J. (2000). Room acoustics and amplification. In M. Valente, R. Roser, & H. Hosford-Dunn (Eds.), Audiology: Treatment strategies (pp. 601-638). New York: Thieme.
7. Crandell, C., Smaldino, J., & Flexer, C. (1995). Sound-field amplification. Theory and practical application. San Diego, CA: Singular.
8. Fabry, D. (1994). Noise reduction with FM systems in FM/EM mode. Ear & Hearing, 15, 82-86.
9. Freeman, B., Sinclair, J., & Riggs, D. (1980). Electroacoustic characteristics of personal FM auditory trainers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 14, 16-26.
10. Gravel, J., Fausel, N., Liskow, C., & Chobot, J. (1999). Children's speech recognition in noise using omni-directional and dual-microphone hearing aid technology. Ear & Hearing, 20, 1-11.
11. Hawkins, D. (1984). Comparisons of speech recognition in noise by mildly-to-moderately hearing-impaired children using hearing aids and FM systems. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 409-418.
12. Hawkins, D., & Yacullo, W. (1984). Signal-to-noise advantage of binaural hearing aids and directional microphones under different levels of reverberation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 278-285.
13. Lewis, M. S., Crandell, C., Valente, M., & Enrietto, J. (in press). Speech perception in noise: Directional microphones versus frequency modulation (FM) systems. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.
14. Nilsson, M., McCaw, V., & Soli, S. (1996). Minimum Speech Test Battery for Adult Cochlear Implant Users: User manual. Los Angeles: House Ear Institute.
15. Nilsson, M., Soli, S., & Sullivan, J. (1994). Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085-1099.
16. Pfeiffer, E. (1975). A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 23, 433-441.
17. Pittman, A., Lewis, D., Hoover, B., & Stelmachowicz, P. (1999). Recognition performance for four combinations of FM system and hearing aid microphone signals in adverse listening conditions. Ear & Hearing, 20, 279-289.
18. Plomp, R. (1986). A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold for the hearing impaired. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 146-154.
19. Prosser, S., Turini, M., & Arslan, E. (1990). Effects of different noise on speech discrimination by the elderly. Acta Otolaryngology Supplement, 476, 136-142.
20. Pumford, J., Seewald, R., Scollie, S., & Jenstad, L. (2000). Speech recognition with in-the-ear and behind-the-ear dual-microphone hearing instruments. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 11, 23-35.
21. Ross, M., & Giolas, T. (1971). Effect of three classroom listening conditions on speech intelligibility. American Annals of the Deaf, 116, 580-584.
22. Sanders, D. (1965). Noise conditions in normal school classrooms. Exceptional Child, 31, 344-353.
23. Seewald, R. (2000). An update on DSL [i/o]. Hearing Journal, 53(4), 10, 12, 14, 16.
24. Thibodeau, L., & Saucedo, K. (1991). Consistency of electro-acoustic characteristics across components of FM systems. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 628-635.
25. Valente, M. (2000). Use of microphone technology to improve user performance in noise. In R. Sandlin (Ed.), Textbook of hearing aid amplification: Technical and clinical considerations (pp. 247-284). San Diego, CA: Singular.
26. Valente, M., Fabry, D., & Potts, L. (1995). Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 6, 440-450.
27. Valente, M., Schuchman, G., Potts, L., & Beck, L. (2000). Performance of dual-microphone in-the-ear hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 11, 181-189.