A Pilot Investigation Regarding Speech-Recognition Performance in Noise for Adults with Hearing Loss in the FM+HA Listening Condition

Volta Review

Volumn 110, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 31-54

  Lewis, M Samantha ^a   Gallun, Frederick J ^a   Gordon, Jane ^a   Lilly, David J ^b   Crandell, Carl ^c  

^a PORTLAND VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952938157     PISSN: 00428639     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17955/tvr.110.1.617     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. American Academy of Audiology. (2008, April). Clinical practice guidelines: Remote microphone hearing assistive technologies for children and youth birth-21 years. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www. audiology.org/NR/rdonlyres/3C5FElCC-3536-45B3-A4DF-9EB835A6BB07/0/ HATGuideline042208.pdf.
2. ANSI S3.5-1997. (1997). Methods for calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. American National Standards Institute, New York.
3. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000). Guidelines for fitting and monitoring FM systems. ASHA Desk Reference.
4. Amlani, A. (2001). Efficacy of directional microphone hearing aids: A meta-analytic perspective. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 22(4), 202-214.
5. Bentler, R., Egge, J., Tubbs, J., Dittberner, A., & Flamme, G. (2004). Quantification of directional benefit across different polar response patterns. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 25(9), 649-659.
6. Blair, J. (1977). Effects of amplification, speech reading, and classroom environment on reception of speech. The Volta Review, 79,443-449.
7. Boothroyd, A. (2004). Hearing aid accessories for adults: The remote FM microphone. Ear & Hearing, 25(1), 22-33.
8. Boothroyd, A., & Iglehart, F. (1998). Experiments with classroom FM amplification. Ear & Hearing, 19,202-217.
9. Byrne, D., Dillon, H. Ching, T., Katsch, R., & Keidser, G. (2001). NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: Characteristics and comparison with other procedures. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 22(1), 37-51.
10. Byrne, D., Parkinson, A., & Newall, P. (1991). Modified hearing aid selection procedures for severe/profound hearing losses. In G.A. Studebaker, F.H. Bess, and L.B. Beck (Eds.), The Vanderbilt hearing aid report II. Parkton, MD: York Press.
11. Crandell, C. (1991). Individual differences in speech recognition ability: Implications for hearing aid selection. Ear & Hearing, 5,100-107.
12. Crandell, C, Smaldino, J., & Flexer, C. (1995). Soundfield FM amplification: Theory and practical applications. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Company.
13. Erkinjuntti, T., Sulkava, R., Wikstrom, J., & Autio, L. (1987). Short portable mental status questionnaire as a screening test for dementia and delirium among the elderly. Journal of the American Gerontological Society, 35(5), 412-416.
14. Fabry, D. (1994). Noise reduction with FM systems in FM/EM mode. Ear & Hearing, 15,82-86.
15. French, N., & Steinberg, J. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 19,90-119.
16. Frye Electronics, Inc. (2003, January). Testing FM systems with the FONIX 6500-CX Hearing Aid Analyzer. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from http://frye.com/manuals/fm6500.pdf.
17. 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.
18. Houtgast, T., & Steenken, H.J.M. (1985). A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77,1069-1077.
19. Jamieson, D., Kranjc, G., Yu, K., & Hodgetts, W. (2004). Speech intelligibility of young school-aged children in the presence of real-life classroom noise. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 15(7), 508-517.
20. Killion, M., Niquette, P., Gudmundsen, G., Revitt, L., & Banjaree, S. (2004). Development of a quick speech in noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(4 Pt 1), 2395-2405.
21. Lewis, D. (2006, November 13) Electroacoustic evaluation of advanced FM systems. Retrieved April 30,2009, from http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/ article-detail.asp?article-id=1718.
22. Lewis, D., & Eiten, L. (2003). Assessment of advanced hearing instrument and FM technology. In D.A. Fabry and C. DeConde Johnson (Eds.), ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions-2003. Proceedings of the First International FM Conference (pp. 167-174). Warrenville, IL: Phonak AG.
23. Lewis, D., & Eiten, L. (2004). "Proposed protocol for setting FM-advantage levels with MLx-S FM receivers," poster presentation, A Sound Foundation through Early Amplification Conference, Chicago, IL. Available on CD included with R.C. Seewald and J.M Bamford (Eds.), A Sound Foundation Through Early Amplification 2004. Proceedings of the Third International Conference, Phonak AG.
24. Lewis, M.S. (2002). Speech perception in noise: Directional microphones versus frequency modulation (FM) systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
25. Lewis, M.S., Crandell, C, & Kreisman, N. (2004). Effects of frequency modulation (FM) transmitter microphone setting on speech perception in noise. American Journal of Audiology, 13(1), 16-22.
26. Lewis, M.S., Crandell, C, & Valente, M. (2004). Speech perception in noise for individuals with sensorineural hearing loss using frequency modulation (FM) technology. Phonak Focus, 34,1-15.
27. Lewis, M.S., Crandell, C, Valente, M., & Horn, J. (2004). Speech perception in noise: Directional microphones versus frequency modulation (FM) systems. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 15(6), 424-437.
28. Lewis, M.S., Lilly, D., Hutter, M., Bourdette, D., Saunders, J., & Fausti, S. (2006a). Frequency-modulation (FM) technology as a method for improving speech perception in noise for individuals with multiple sclerosis. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 17(8), 605-616.
29. Lewis, M.S., Lilly, D., Hutter, M., Bourdette, D., Saunders, J., & Fausti, S. (2006b). Some effects of multiple sclerosis on speech perception in noise. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 43(1), 91-97.
30. Nilsson, M., McCaw, V., & Soli S. (1996). Minimum Speech Test Battery for Adult Cochlear Implant Users: User Manual. Los Angeles, CA: House Ear Institute.
31. 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(2), 1085-1099.
32. 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 and Hearing, 20,279-289.
33. Platz, R. (2006). New insights and developments in verification of FM systems. Available for download from http://www.phonak.com/professional/ eschooldesk/professional-eschooldesk-reading.htm.
34. Platz, R. (2004). SNR advantage, FM advantage, and FM fitting. In D.A. Fabry and C. DeConde Johnson (Eds.), ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions-2003. Proceedings of the First International FM Conference (pp. 147-154). Warrenville, IL: Phonak AG.
35. 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.
36. Prosser, S., Turini, M., & Arslan, E. (1990). Effects of different noise on speech discrimination by the elderly. Acta Otolaryngology Supplement, 476,136-142.
37. Ricketts, T., & Dhar, S. (1999). Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 180-189.
38. Ross, M., & Giolas, T. (1971). Effect of three classroom listening conditions on speech intelligibility. American Annals of the Deaf, 116,580-584.
39. Rowson, V, & Bamford, J. (1995). Selecting the gain for radio microphone (FM) systems: Theoretical considerations and practical limitations. British Journal of Audiology, 29(3), 161-171.
40. Sanders, D. (1965). Noise conditions in normal school classrooms. Exceptional Child, 31,344-353.
41. Schafer, E., Thibodeau, L., Whalen, H., & Overson, G. (2007). Electroacoustic evaluation of frequency-modulated receivers interfaced wtih personal hearing aids. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services for the Schools, 38,315-326.
42. Steeneken, H., & Houtgast, T. (1980). A physical method for measuring speech-transmission quality. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67(1), 318-326.
43. 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(6), 440-450.
44. Wagener, K., & Brand, T. (2005). Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: Influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. International Journal of Audiology, 44(3), 144-156.
45. Wagener, K., Hansen, M., & Ludvigsen, C. (2008). Recording and classification of the acoustic environment of hearing aid users. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 19(4), 348-369.