Purpose-A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to compare the language and auditory processing outcomes of children assigned to Fast ForWord-Language (FFW-L) to the outcomes of children assigned to nonspecific or specific language intervention comparison treatments that did not contain modified speech.Method-Two hundred and sixteen children between the ages of 6 and 9 years with language impairments were randomly assigned to one of four arms: Fast ForWord-Language (FFW-L), academic enrichment (AE), computer-assisted language intervention (CALI), or individualized language intervention (ILI) provided by a speech-language pathologist. All children received 1 hour and 40 minutes of treatment, 5 days per week, for 6 weeks. Language and auditory processing measures were administered to the children by blinded examiners before treatment, immediately after treatment, 3 months after treatment, and 6 months after treatment.Results-The children in all four arms improved significantly on a global language test and a test of backward masking. Children with poor backward masking scores who were randomized to the FFW-L arm did not present greater improvement on the language measures than children with poor backward masking scores who were randomized to the other three arms. Effect sizes, analyses of standard error of measurement, and normalization percentages supported the clinical significance of NIH Public Access (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). Participants in the FFW-L and CALI arms earned higher phonological awareness scores than children in the ILI and AE arms at the six-month follow-up testing. Conclusion-FastForWord-Language, the language intervention that provided modified speech to address a hypothesized underlying auditory processing deficit, was not more effective at improving general language skills or temporal processing skills than a nonspecific comparison treatment (AE) or specific language intervention comparison treatments (CALI and ILI) that did not contain modified speech stimuli. These findings call into question the temporal processing hypothesis of language impairment and the hypothesized benefits of using acoustically modified speech to improve language skills. The finding that children in the three treatment arms and the active comparison arm made clinically relevant gains on measures of language and temporal auditory processing informs our understanding of the variety of intervention activities that can facilitate development.Approximately seven percent of all school-age children have unusual difficulty learning and using language despite adequate hearing, nonverbal intelligence, and motor abilities (Tomblin, Records, & Zhang, 1996). This difficulty, which has been referred to by a variety of terms including language impairment, language-learning disability, specific language impairment, and language-learning impairment, can have serious social, academic, and vocational ramifications (Brinton, Spackman, Fujiki, & Ricks, 2007;Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002;Clegg, Hollis, M...

Children's speech-in-noise thresholds did not improve when providing input to the second side with a CI or an HA relative to a single CI. However, children with CIs had better speech recognition in noise with the use of an FM system on one or both sides relative to the conditions with no FM system. Binaural conditions with a single FM receiver on the second CI or HA yielded significantly poorer performance than any other FM condition.

Speech recognition was evaluated for ten adults with normal hearing and eight adults with Nucleus cochlear implants (CIs) at several different signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and with three frequency modulated (FM) system arrangements: desktop, body worn, and miniature direct connect. Participants were asked to repeat Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences presented with speech noise in a classroom setting and percent correct word repetition was determined. Performance was evaluated for both normal-hearing and CI participants with the desktop soundfield system. In addition, speech recognition for the CI participants was evaluated using two FM systems electrically coupled to their speech processors. When comparing the desktop sound field and the No-FM condition, only the listeners with normal hearing made significant improvements in speech recognition in noise. When comparing the performance across the three FM conditions for the CI listeners, the two electrically coupled FM systems resulted in significantly greater improvements in speech recognition in noise relative to the desktop soundfield system.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the speech recognition in noise when using a transparent mask that allows greater visibility of the talker’s face compared to an opaque mask in persons with normal and impaired hearing via an online format. Design: A repeated-measures design was used to evaluate the auditory-visual recognition of sentences recorded in background noise with transparent and opaque face masks, and without a mask (N = 154). In a smaller follow-up study (N = 29), the same files were presented via auditory-only presentation to determine if differences observed in the transparent and opaque mask conditions were attributable to additional visual cues or to acoustic differences between the recordings of the two mask types. Listeners completed the 40-minute online session on a computer, laptop, or tablet in a quiet room via their personal listening devices (earbuds or hearing assistive device). The adult volunteers who used English as their first language were recruited through social media links and email and categorized into three groups: normal hearing and confirmed or suspected hearing loss either with or without the use of assistive listening devices. Results: Auditory-visual recognition of sentences recorded with the transparent mask was significantly better (M = 68.9%) than for sentences recorded with the opaque mask (M = 58.9%) for all participants. There was a trend for those who used hearing assistive technology to score lower than the other two groups who had similar performance across all conditions regardless of the mask type. Subjective ratings of confidence and concentration followed the expected pattern based on objective scores. Results of the auditory-only presentation of the sentences to listeners with normal hearing suggested that the transparent mask benefits were not attributable to an acoustic advantage but rather to the addition of the visual cues of the talker’s face available through the transparent mask. In fact, performance in the auditory-only presentation was significantly lower with the transparent mask (M = 40.7%) compared to the opaque mask (M = 58.2%). Conclusions: Use of transparent masks can significantly facilitate speech recognition in noise even for persons with normal hearing and thus may reduce stressful communication challenges experienced in medical, employment, and educational settings during the global pandemic. To mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and facilitate communication, safety-approved transparent masks are strongly encouraged over opaque masks.

Using a quantitative, reliable, sensitive and valid measurement technique, we analyzed the rate and pattern of motor deterioration in 50 strictly defined ALS patients for up to 67 months. We observed that the rate of motoneuron loss was linear and symmetric. Bulbar function deteriorated more slowly than respiratory, arm, and leg function. The loss of leg strength was slower than in the arm. No correlation was observed between age at onset and rate of deterioration, or with different regions of onset. Arm strength changed more slowly in women, but other functions showed no male-female differences. These data should prove useful in the design of clinical trials and in generating testable hypotheses of the etiology of this disease.