Trends in Classroom Amplification

Advances in hearing instrument and fre- quency-modulated (FM) technology provide audiologists and families with many choices when selecting class- room amplification. An understanding of the benefits and limitations of amplification options, as well as an understanding of current fitting and verification proce- dures, is important for audiologists who recommend and fit these devices. This article will address two of the most commonly used options in classroom amplification: individual FM systems and sound-field systems (FM and infrared). Device options and procedures for fitting and follow-up will be discussed.

[1]  M. P. Moeller,et al.  Longitudinal Study of FM System Use in Nonacademic Settings: Effects on Language Development , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[2]  M. Ross,et al.  Effect of three classroom listening conditions on speech intelligibility. , 1971, American annals of the deaf.

[3]  C. Johnson,et al.  Children's phoneme identification in reverberation and noise. , 2000, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[4]  D B Hawkins,et al.  Signal-to-noise ratio advantage of binaural hearing aids and directional microphones under different levels of reverberation. , 1984, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[5]  Carl C. Crandell,et al.  Sound Field Amplification: Applications to Speech Perception and Classroom Acoustics , 2004 .

[6]  Frank Iglehart,et al.  Speech perception by students with cochlear implants using sound-field systems in classrooms. , 2004, American journal of audiology.

[7]  S. Zentall,et al.  Effects of classroom noise on performance and activity of second-grade hyperactive and control children. , 1980, Journal of educational psychology.

[8]  C. Crandell.  Speech Recognition in Noise by Children with Minimal Degrees of Sensorineural Hearing loss , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[9]  Carole E. Johnson,et al.  "Minimal" High-Frequency Hearing Loss and School-Age Children , 1997 .

[10]  John S. Bradley,et al.  Speech recognition by grades 1, 3 and 6 children in classrooms , 2004 .

[11]  Peggy B. Nelson,et al.  Background noise levels and reverberation times in unoccupied classrooms: predictions and measurements. , 2002, American journal of audiology.

[12]  R. Cox.  Choosing a Self-Report Measure for Hearing Aid Fitting Outcomes , 2005 .

[13]  Howard Goldstein,et al.  Benefi t of S/N Enhancing Devices to Speech Perception of Children Listening in a Typical Classroom with Hearing Aids or a Cochlear Implant , 2005 .

[14]  Dawna E. Lewis,et al.  Assistive Devices for Classroom Listening , 1994 .

[15]  J. L. Culbertson,et al.  Identification, Assessment, and Management of Children with Unilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss , 1986, Ear and hearing.

[16]  William E Hodgetts,et al.  Speech intelligibility of young school-aged children in the presence of real-life classroom noise. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[17]  Peggy Nelson,et al.  Classroom noise and children learning through a second language: double jeopardy? , 2005, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[18]  Fred H. Bess.  Amplification for Infants and Children With Hearing Loss , 1996 .

[19]  T W Tillman,et al.  Room acoustics effects on monosyllabic word discrimination ability for normal and hearing-impaired children. , 1978, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[20]  Howard Goldstein,et al.  Speech perception benefits of FM and infrared devices to children with hearing aids in a typical classroom. , 2004, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[21]  R Leavitt,et al.  Speech degradation as measured by the Rapid Speech Transmission Index (RASTI). , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[22]  Carl C. Crandell,et al.  Speech Perception in Noise by Children for Whom English Is a Second Language , 1996 .

[23]  S. Pratt,et al.  Speech recognition abilities in noise for children with severe-to-profound unilateral hearing impairment. , 2005, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.