Evidence for the Use of Hearing Assistive Technology by Adults: The Role of the FM System

Abstract

Hearing assistive technologies include listening, alerting, and/or signaling devices that use auditory, visual, and/or tactile modalities to augment communication and/or facilitate awareness of environmental sounds. The importance of hearing assistive technologies in the management of adults with hearing loss was recently acknowledged in an evidence-based clinical practice guideline developed by the American Academy of Audiology. Most currently available evidence for hearing assistive technology use by adults focuses on frequency-modulated (FM) technology. Previous research is reviewed that demonstrates the efficacy of FM devices for adults in terms of laboratory measures of speech understanding in noise. Also reviewed are the outcomes from field trials of FM use by community-dwelling adults, which, to date, have been disappointing. Few to no individuals, in previous studies, elected to use FM devices at the end of the trial periods. Data are presented from a 1-group pretest-posttest study examining the role of extensive counseling, coaching, and instruction on FM use by adults. In addition, the potential influence of the cost of devices to the individual was eliminated by conducting the study with veterans who were eligible to receive FM systems through the Veterans Affairs National Hearing Aid Program. Positive outcomes were obtained at the end of a 6-week trial period and were found to remain 1 year after study completion. Implications for increasing the evidence base for the use of FM devices by adults are discussed.

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

“…They are also very beneficial for adults with hearing loss (Chisolm, Noe, McArdle, & Abrams, 2007) and cochlear implants (Schafer, Wolfe, Lawless, & Stout, 2009). Recently, there has been development of small wireless remote microphones that involve digital transmission to receivers that can be included in custom aids.…”

The Benefits of Remote Microphone Technology for Adults with Cochlear Implants

“…Receiver options include a personal receiver worn by the listener or a sound-field system. The placement of the microphone near the source of the acoustic signal enhances the S/N ratio by reducing the effects of noise, reverberation, and distance, all of which interfere with speech understanding (Schafer & Thibodeau 2004;Chisholm et al 2007). Studies have documented benefits from RM technology for children in classroom situations (Davies et al 2001;Schafer & Thibodeau 2003).…”

Self-determination theory and hearing rehabilitation: The role of motivation in help-seeking, hearing aid adoption and hearing aid fitting outcomes

“…For each form of intervention there has been evidence of benefit (Takahashi et al, 2007;Johnson, Danhauer, Ellis, & Jilla, 2016;Chisolm, Noe, McArdle, & Abrams, 2007b;Hawkins, 2005;Sweetow & Palmer, 2005;Jennings, 2009) and improved quality of life (Chisolm et al, 2007a;Cox, Johnson, & Xu, 2016;Chisolm et al, 2007b;Hickson, Worrall, & Scarinci, 2006;Kramer, Allessie, Dondorp, Zekveld, & Kapteyn, 2005;Preminger & Yoo, 2010). Among these interventions, hearing aid fitting has been the most commonly recommended by audiologists .…”

“…Despite the efficacy of rehabilitation options such as individual and group rehabilitation (Hawkins, 2005) and assistive listening devices (Chisolm, Noe, McArdle, & Abrams, 2007), choices appeared to be limited to adopting or not adopting hearing aids, or if hearing aids were accepted, the range of hearing aid styles. To promote rehabilitation options within an evidence-based practice framework, decision aids have been suggested as a method of addressing the issue of choice (Woolf et al, 2005;.…”

“…Finally, the research in this thesis only considered rehabilitation involving hearing aids. Although the decision to adopt or not adopt hearing aids is the most common one that hearing help-seekers face at an initial consultation , rehabilitation options such as individual and group rehabilitation programs, assistive devices or no intervention may also be available (e.g., Laplante-Lévesque et al, 2011;Chisolm et al, 2007). This was flagged as a potential limitation of the research in Chapter 4 because it was not known whether participants were offered other forms of intervention, and if they were, what impact this might have had on participants' decisions.…”