Comparison of speech recognition with adaptive digital and FM remote microphone hearing assistance technology by listeners who use hearing aids

American Journal of Audiology

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 201-210

  Thibodeau, Linda ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Amplification or hearing aids; Auditory rehabilitation; Speech perception; Technology

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS, BILATERAL; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; SELF HELP DEVICE; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS, BILATERAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; SELF-HELP DEVICES; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84902996648     PISSN: 10590889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/2014_AJA-13-0065     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Abdi,H. (2007). Bonferroni and widák corrections for multiple comparisons. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. 105-106. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
2. Abrams,H., Chisolm,T.H., McArdle, R. 2002. A cost-utility analysis of adult group audiologic rehabilitation: Are the benefits worth the cost? Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 39, 549-558
3. American Academy of Audiology. 2008. American Academy of Audiology clinical practice guidelines: Remote microphone hearing assistance technologies for children and youth from birth to 21 years. Available at www.audiology.org
4. American National Standards Institute. 2003 Specifications for hearing aid characteristics (ANSI S3.22-2003). New York, NY: Author
5. Anderson, K. L. Goldstein,H. 2004. Speech perception benefits of FM and infrared devices to children with hearing aids in a typical classroom. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 169-184
6. Bondurant, L., Thibodeau, L. 2011. Behavioral verification of programmable FM advantage settings. Journal of Educational Audiology, 17, 11-22
7. Chisolm, T., Abrams,H. B., McArdle, R. 2004. Short- and long-term outcomes of adult audiological rehabilitation. Ear and Hearing, 25, 464-477
8. Chisolm, T.H., Noe, C.M., McArdle, R., Abrams, H. 2007. Evidence for the use of hearing assistive technology by adults: The role of the FM system. Trends in Amplification, 11, 73-89
9. Chisolm, T.H., Noe, C.M., McArdle, R., Hemard, A., Abrams, H., Wilson, R. H, Rost, L. 2004. FM technology use in adults with significant hearing loss: Part II: Outcomes. In D. Fabry C. DeConde Johnson (Eds.), ACCESS: Achieving clear communication employing sound solutions, 2003. Proceedings of the First International FM Conference. Warrenville, IL: Phonak AG.Retrieved from www.phonakpro.com/us/b2b/en/events/proceedings/fm_conference_2003.html
10. Dillon, H., James, A. Ginis, J. (1997). Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 8, 27-43
11. Hawkins, D.B. (2005). Effectiveness of counseling-based adult group aural rehabilitation programs: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 16, 485-493
12. Hornickel, J., Zecker, S.G., Bradlow, A.R., Kraus, N. 2012. Assistive listening devices drive neuroplasticity in children with dyslexia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 16731-16736
13. Johnston, K.N., John, A.B., Kreisman, N.V., Hall, J.W., III, Crandell, C.C. 2009. Multiple benefits of personal FM systemuse by children with auditory processing disorder (APD). International Journal of Audiology, 48, 371-383
14. Kochkin, S., Beck, D., Christensen, L., Compton-Conley, C., Fligor, B., Kricos, P., Turner, R. 2010. MarkeTrak VIII: The impact of the hearing healthcare professional on hearing aid user success. Hearing Review, 17(4), 12-34
15. Larsen, J.B., Blair, J.C. 2008. The effect of classroom amplification on the signal-to-noise ratio in classrooms while class is in session. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 451-460
16. Lewis, D.E., Eiten, L.R. (2004). Assessment of advanced hearing instrument and FM technology. In D. A. Fabry C. DeConde Johnson (Eds.), ACCESS: Achieving clear communication employing sound solutions. Proceedings of the First International FM Conference. Warrenville, IL: Phonak AG.Retrieved from www.phonakpro.com/us/b2b/en/ events/proceedings/fm_conference_2003.html
17. Mulrow, C.D., Aguilar, C., Endicott, J.E., Tuley, M.R., Velez, R., Charlip, W.,DeNino, L. A. (1990). Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment: A randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 113, 188-194
18. Nilsson, M., McCaw, V., Soli, S. (1996). Minimum speech test battery for adult cochlear implant users. Los Angeles, CA: Ear Institute
19. Nilsson, M., Soli, S.D., Sullivan, J.A. (1994). Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085-1099
20. Platz, R. (2004). SNR advantage, FM advantage and FM fitting. In D. Fabry C. DeConde Johnson (Eds.), ACCESS: Achieving clear communication employing sound solutions. Proceedings of the First International FM Conference Warrenville, IL: Phonak AG.Retrieved from.html
21. Purdy, S.C., Smart, J.L., Baily, M. Sharma, M. (2009). Do children with reading delay benefit from the use of personal FM systems in the classroom? International Journal of Audiology, 48, 843-852
22. Schafer, E.C., Thibodeau, L.M. (2006). Speech recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements. American Journal of Audiology, 15, 114-126
23. Schafer, E.C., Wolfe, J., Lawless, T., Stout, B. (2009). Effects of FM-receiver gain on speech-recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants. International Journal of Audiology, 48, 196-203
24. Sherbecoe, R.L., Studebaker, G.A. (2004). Supplementary formulas and tables for calculating and interconverting speech recognition scores in transformed arcsine units. International Journal of Audiology, 43, 442-448
25. Thibodeau, L. 2006. Application of advanced listening technology in adults-AALTA. In D. Fabry C. DeConde Johnson (Eds.), ACCESS: Achieving clear communication employing sound solutions. Proceedings of the First International FM Conference. Warrenville, IL: Phonak AG.Retrieved from www.phonakpro.com/content/dam/phonak/b2b/ Events/conference_proceedings/adult_conference_chicago_ 2006/tuesday/2006proceedings_thibodeau
26. Thibodeau, L. 2006. Terminology and standardization. In D. Fabry C. DeConde Johnson (Eds.), ACCESS: Achieving clear communication employing sound solutions. Proceedings of the First InternationalFMConference. Warrenville, IL: Phonak AG.Retrieved from www.phonakpro.com/content/dam/phonak/b2b/Events/conference_proceedings/adult_conference_chicago_2006/tuesday/2006proceedings_thibodeau
27. Thibodeau, L. (2010). Benefits of adaptive FM systems on speech recognition in noise for listeners who use hearing aids. American Journal of Audiology, 19, 36-45
28. Wolfe, J., Schafer, E.C., Heldner, B., Mülder, H., Ward, E., Vincent, B. (2009). Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 20, 409-421