Comparison of Speech Recognition With Adaptive Digital and FM Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technology by Listeners Who Use Hearing Aids

Thibodeau, Linda

doi:10.1044/2014_aja-13-0065

Cited by 43 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three different studies assessed the following feasibility domains: (i) satisfaction (Chisolm et al 2007); (ii) preferences (Thibodeau 2014); and (iii) usability (Smith and Davis 2014).…”

Section: Feasibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…randomisation, blinding), lower quality ratings arose because no studies randomised participants to intervention groups. Furthermore, only one study attempted to blind study participants to the intervention they received (Thibodeau 2014). Similarly, a power calculation was reported for only one study to determine sample size (Rodemerk and Galster 2015).…”

Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids in adults with hearing loss

Maidment

Barker

Xia

et al. 2018

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent technological advances have led to a rapid increase in alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids. The aim was to systematically review the existing evidence to assess the effectiveness of alternative listening devices in adults with mild and moderate hearing loss. A systematic search strategy of the scientific literature was employed, reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Eleven studies met eligibility for inclusion: two studies evaluated personal sound amplification products, and nine studies assessed remote microphone systems (frequency modulation, Bluetooth, wireless). The evidence in this review suggests that alternative listening devices improve behavioural measures of speech intelligibility relative to unaided and/or aided conditions. Evidence for whether alternative listening devices improve self-reported outcomes is inconsistent. The evidence was judged to be of poor to good quality and subject to bias due to limitations in study design. Our overall recommendation is that high-quality evidence (i.e. randomised controlled trials) is required to demonstrate the effectiveness of alternative listening devices. Such evidence is not currently available and is necessary to guide healthcare commissioners and policymakers when considering new service delivery models for adults with hearing loss.

show abstract

“…Three different studies assessed the following feasibility domains: (i) satisfaction (Chisolm et al 2007); (ii) preferences (Thibodeau 2014); and (iii) usability (Smith and Davis 2014).…”

Section: Feasibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids in adults with hearing loss

Maidment

Barker

Xia

et al. 2018

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The impact of these technological changes has been evaluated in persons who wear earlevel amplification and in persons with cochlear implants. [8][9][10][11] Following a review of the initial study to evaluate the benefits of adaptive FM over fixed FM, a second study to determine the additional benefits from the digital processing will be reviewed. In addition to improvements in speech recognition in noise, the major change in connectivity without channel management has resulted in yet another hallmark in wireless technological advances.…”

Section: Digital Wireless Technology For Ha Users/thibodeau Schapermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The next major advance in wireless technology was the development of digital processing in the wireless transmitters and receivers. 9 Benefits of this technology included smaller components with wider bandwidth and the elimination of the need for channel management. Furthermore, the signal quality can be theoretically superior because FM channel noise is most likely not present.…”

Section: Adaptive Digital Compared With Adaptive Fmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To determine the benefits in speech recognition of these new features, a study with experienced hearing aid users was modeled after the previous study. 9 The purpose was to compare speech recognition in noise with three wireless transmission systems-fixed FM, adaptive FM, and adaptive digital-in clinical and real-world settings. Based on the previous findings with the adaptive FM processing, the comparisons would be needed for a series of noise levels.…”

Section: Adaptive Digital Compared With Adaptive Fmmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Benefits of Digital Wireless Technology for Persons with Hearing Aids

Thibodeau

Schaper

2014

Semin Hear

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wireless technology for persons with hearing loss began with cumbersome body-worn systems that nevertheless provided speechrecognition benefits in noisy environments. The first ear-level wireless systems were welcomed despite the awkward antenna that extended from the behind-the-ear case. The next-generation, removable, multichannel receiver provided a cost-effective means for school districts to maintain a stock of equipment to be used across students and classrooms. More recently, the advances have been less focused on physical size reductions and more focused on improvements to the signal quality in increasingly noisier environments. Two studies were designed to evaluate the new technological features by Phonak (Phonak, Warrenville, IL) known as adaptive FM and later adaptive digital processing. Each advance in technology resulted in greater gains in speech recognition in noise such that with the adaptive digital system, persons were able to achieve 48% correct in 80-decibels A weighted (dBA) noise levels. Persons with hearing loss using this technology are likely to hear more than persons with normal hearing in high-noise environments.Learning Outcomes: As a result of this activity, the participant will be able to (1) describe three types of remote microphone wireless processing: analogue fixed frequency-modulated (FM) advantage, analogue dynamic FM advantage, and digital adaptive FM advantage and (2) describe three advantages of the digital adaptive FM advantage wireless technology over previous wireless technology.

show abstract

Intelligent Hearing Instruments—Trends and Challenges

Georganti¹,

Courtois²,

Derleth³

et al. 2020

Modern Acoustics and Signal Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of Speech Recognition With Adaptive Digital and FM Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technology by Listeners Who Use Hearing Aids

Abstract: The use of adaptive digital technology combined with speechreading cues would allow persons with HI to engage in communication in environments that would have otherwise not been possible with traditional wireless technology.

Cited by 43 publications

References 15 publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids in adults with hearing loss

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids in adults with hearing loss

Benefits of Digital Wireless Technology for Persons with Hearing Aids

Intelligent Hearing Instruments—Trends and Challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About