How internet telephony could improve communication for hearing-impaired individuals

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 31, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1014-1021

  Mantokoudis, Georgios ^a   Kompis, Martin ^a   Dubach, Patrick ^a   Caversaccio, Marco ^a   Senn, Pascal ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Hearing impaired; Internet telephone; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ANALOG DIGITAL CONVERTER; ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; FEMALE; HABIT; HEARING AID; HEARING DISORDER; HUMAN; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TELEPHONE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; ANALOG-DIGITAL CONVERSION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; HABITS; HEARING AIDS; HEARING DISORDERS; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOFTWARE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TELEPHONE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77956339772     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181ec1d46     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Adams JS, Hasenstab MS, Pippin GW, et al. Telephone use and understanding in patients with cochlear implants. Ear Nose Throat J 2004;83:96, 9-100, 2-3.
2. Cray JW, Allen RL, Stuart A, et al. An investigation of telephone use among cochlear implant recipients. Am J Audiol 2004;13: 200-12.
3. Holmes AE, Frank T. Telephone listening ability for hearingimpaired individuals. Ear Hear 1984;5:96-100.
4. Kepler LJ, Terry M, Sweetman RH. Telephone usage in the hearingimpaired population. Ear Hear 1992;13:311-9.
5. Tyler RS, Baker LJ, Armstrong-Bednall G. Difficulties experienced by hearing-aid candidates and hearing-aid users. Br J Audiol 1983; 17:191-201.
6. Ito J, Nakatake M, Fujita S. Hearing ability by telephone of patients with cochlear implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;121: 802-4.
7. Qian H, Loizou PC, Dorman MF. A phone-assistive device based on Bluetooth technology for cochlear implant users. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2003;11:282-7.
8. Bowe FG. Deaf and hard of hearing Americans' instant messaging and e-mail use: a national survey. Am Ann Deaf 2002;147:6-10.
9. Power D, Power MR, Rehling B. German deaf people using text communication: short message service, TTY, relay services, fax, and e-mail. Am Ann Deaf 2007;152:291-301.
10. Cavender A, Vanam R, Barney DK, et al. MobileASL: intelligibility of sign language video over mobile phones. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2008;3:93-105.
11. Foulds RA. Biomechanical and perceptual constraints on the bandwidth requirements of sign language. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2004;12:65-72.
12. Parton BS. Sign language recognition and translation: a multidisciplined approach from the field of artificial intelligence. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2006;11:94-101.
13. Cacciatore F, Napoli C, Abete P, et al. Quality of life determinants and hearing function in an elderly population: Osservatorio Geriatrico Campano Study Group. Gerontology 1999;45:323-8.
14. Dalton DS, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, et al. The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist 2003;43:661-8.
15. Gates GA, Cobb JL, Linn RT, et al. Central auditory dysfunction, cognitive dysfunction, and dementia in older people. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;122:161-7.
16. Agrawal Y, Platz EA, Niparko JK. Prevalence of hearing loss and differences by demographic characteristics among US adults: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1522-30.
17. Cruickshanks KJ, Tweed TS, Wiley TL, et al. The 5-year incidence and progression of hearing loss: the epidemiology of hearing loss study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:1041-6.
18. Kompis M, Krebs M, Hausler R. [Verification of normative values for the Swiss version of the Freiburg speech intelligibility test]. Hno 2006;54:445-50.
19. Hochmair-Desoyer I, Schulz E, Moser L, et al. The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. Am J Otol 1997;18:S83.
20. NCH Swift Sound Software. Switch Audio File Conversion. Available at: http://www.nch.com.au/. NCH Software Pty Ltd, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
21. Matlab software (computer program). The MathWorks, Inc., 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 0170, U.S.A. Available at: http://www.mathworks.com. Accessed July 1, 2010.
22. Baer T, Moore BC, Kluk K. Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;112:1133-44.
23. Milchard AJ, Cullington HE. An investigation into the effect of limiting the frequency bandwidth of speech on speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 2004;43: 356-62.
24. Fu QJ, Galvin JJ 3rd. Recognition of simulated telephone speech by cochlear implant users. Am J Audiol 2006;15:127-32.
25. Horng MJ, Chen HC, Hsu CJ, et al. Telephone speech perception by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implantees. Ear Hear 2007;28: 66SY9S.
26. Liu C, Fu QJ, Narayanan SS. Effect of bandwidth extension to telephone speech recognition in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;125:EL77-83.