Benefits of adaptive FM systems on speech recognition in noise for listeners who use hearing aids.

PURPOSE To compare the benefits of adaptive FM and fixed FM systems through measurement of speech recognition in noise with adults and students in clinical and real-world settings. METHOD Five adults and 5 students with moderate-to-severe hearing loss completed objective and subjective speech recognition in noise measures with the 2 types of FM processing. Sentence recognition was evaluated in a classroom for 5 competing noise levels ranging from 54 to 80 dBA while the FM microphone was positioned 6 in. from the signal loudspeaker to receive input at 84 dB SPL. The subjective measures included 2 classroom activities and 6 auditory lessons in a noisy, public aquarium. RESULTS On the objective measures, adaptive FM processing resulted in significantly better speech recognition in noise than fixed FM processing for 68- and 73-dBA noise levels. On the subjective measures, all individuals preferred adaptive over fixed processing for half of the activities. Adaptive processing was also preferred by most (8-9) individuals for the remaining 4 activities. CONCLUSION The adaptive FM processing resulted in significant improvements at the higher noise levels and was preferred by the majority of participants in most of the conditions.

[1]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  D B Hawkins,et al.  Comparisons of speech recognition in noise by mildly-to-moderately hearing-impaired children using hearing aids and FM systems. , 1984, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[3]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. , 1979, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  Erin C Schafer,et al.  Speech Recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements. , 2006, American journal of audiology.

[5]  Jonathan M. Campbell,et al.  Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test , 2010 .

[6]  M F Huque,et al.  Some comments on frequently used multiple endpoint adjustment methods in clinical trials. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  A. Holt,et al.  Spatial distribution of traffic induced noise exposures in a US city : an analytic tool for assessing the health impacts of urban planning decisions , 2007 .

[8]  Guidelines for Fitting and Monitoring FM Systems , 2002 .

[9]  Arthur Boothroyd.  Hearing Aid Accessories for Adults: The Remote FM Microphone , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[10]  J. A. Bachrach.  Terminology and Standardization , 1969 .

[11]  Erin C Schafer,et al.  Electroacoustic evaluation of frequency-modulated receivers interfaced with personal hearing aids. , 2007, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[12]  C. Crandell,et al.  Classroom Acoustics for Children With Normal Hearing and With Hearing Impairment. , 2000, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[13]  Linda M. Thibodeau.  Electroacoustic Performance of Direct-Input Hearing Aids with FM Amplification Systems , 1990 .

[14]  Erin C Schafer,et al.  Speech recognition abilities of adults using cochlear implants with FM systems. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[15]  Jace Wolfe,et al.  Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM. , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[16]  M Samantha Lewis,et al.  Speech perception in noise: directional microphones versus frequency modulation (FM) systems. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[17]  L M Thibodeau,et al.  Consistency of electroacoustic characteristics across components of FM systems. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.