Group Amplification in Schools for the Hearing Impaired

Bess, Fred H.; Sinclair, Jennifer; Riggs, Donald E.

doi:10.1097/00003446-198405000-00004

Cited by 37 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These 6 test videos were found to be of equal difficulty across 2 noise conditions (SNR = 0 and 5) [Kei et al, 2003]. These conditions were chosen to represent the noise environment commonly experienced in a standard classroom [Bess et al, 1984].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children with Minimal Conductive Hearing Impairment: Speech Comprehension in Noise

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a study sample of 1071 primary school children (5.3–11.7 years), 10.2% of the children were found to have conductive hearing loss in 1 or both ears. Binaural speech comprehension scores of a subset of 540 children were analyzed. The results showed that children with bilateral conductive hearing loss had the lowest mean scores of 60.8–69.3% obtained under noise conditions. These scores were significantly lower than the corresponding scores of 69.3–75.3% obtained by children with possible middle ear disorders but no apparent hearing loss, 70.5–76.5% obtained by children with a unilateral conductive hearing loss and 72.0–80.3% obtained by their normally hearing peers. This study confirms that young children, who are known to have poorer speech understanding in noise, show further disadvantage when a bilateral conductive hearing loss is present.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children with Minimal Conductive Hearing Impairment: Speech Comprehension in Noise

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Directional Hearing Aidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Children with hearing impairment appear to be even more negatively effected by poor SNR (Boothroyd et al, 1996;Crandell, 1993;Crandell and Smaldino, 2000;Finitzo-Hieber and Tillman, 1978), leading the American Speech-Language-Hearing-Association (Bess et al, 1996), and others (Berg, 1993;Bistafa and Bradley, 2000;Blair, 1990;Smaldino and Crandell, 1995), to recommend SNRs of at least +15 to +30 dB in educational settings. Unfortunately, most classrooms have SNRs between -6 and + 6 dB, making learning in such environments difficult (Bess et al, 1984;Crandell and Smaldino, 2000).Results from past investigations offer clear evidence that listening in poor SNRs is a significant problem for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Listening problems in noisy environments can be devastating, and lead some listeners with hearing loss to avoid difficult listening situations, resulting in withdrawal and greater isolation, potentially impacting their overall quality of life in a negative way (Jackson, 1997;McCay, 1996;Mulrow et al, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Directional Hearing Aids

Ricketts

2001

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When asking individuals with hearing impairment to identify the situations for which the most communication difficulty is encountered, listening in nioise seems to be nearly universally mentioned. In fact, I would venture that if queried, almost no patient would refuse the offer of improved levels for sounds of interest in relation to the level of background noise. Improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for listeners with al, 1982;Groen, 1969;Killion, 1997;Plomp, 1976;Schum, 1996;Sutter, 1985). Children with hearing impairment appear to be even more negatively effected by poor SNR (Boothroyd et al., 1996;Crandell, 1993;Crandell and Smaldino, 2000;Finitzo-Hieber and Tillman, 1978), leading the American Speech-Language-Hearing-Association (Bess et al., 1996), and others (Berg, 1993;Bistafa and Bradley, 2000;Blair, 1990;Smaldino and Crandell, 1995), to recommend SNRs of at least +15 to +30 dB in educational settings. Unfortunately, most classrooms have SNRs between -6 and + 6 dB, making learning in such environments difficult (Bess et al., 1984;Crandell and Smaldino, 2000).Results from past investigations offer clear evidence that listening in poor SNRs is a significant problem for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Listening problems in noisy environments can be devastating, and lead some listeners with hearing loss to avoid difficult listening situations, resulting in withdrawal and greater isolation, potentially impacting their overall quality of life in a negative way (Jackson, 1997;McCay, 1996;Mulrow et al., 1990). Hearing aids represent a common rehabilitation method for listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Hearing aids using standard (omnidirectional) microphones, while effective at increasing audibility for speech and other sounds, are largely ineffective in improving inadequate SNR conditions whether they use analog (Killion and

show abstract

“…In the 1980s, 22–35% repeated at least one grade (compared to 2–3.5% for the public school population), and 12–41% received additional educational assistance. 8, 18, 19 During one academic year in Colorado, 36% of children with UHL were in individualized educational program/plans (IEPs). 13 In several studies, teachers reported lower academic performance among children with UHL compared to NH.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Audiologic Characteristics Predict Outcomes in Children With Unilateral Hearing Loss?

Lieu¹,

Karzon²,

Ead³

et al. 2013

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To determine whether audiologic characteristics of unilateral hearing loss in children were associated with language, cognitive or achievement scores. Study design Case-control study Setting Pediatric otolaryngology ambulatory practice Patients Cases (n=109) were children aged 6–12 years with permanent unilateral hearing loss; controls (n=95) were siblings with normal bilateral hearing. Interventions Audiologic characteristics measured included side and severity of hearing loss, and word recognition scores in quiet and in noise. Main outcome measures Cognitive abilities were measured using the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence; reading, math and writing achievement was measured with the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second Edition-Abbreviated; and oral language skills were measured with the Oral Written and Language Scales. Results Children with unilateral hearing loss had worse verbal cognitive and oral language scores than children with normal hearing, but no differences in achievement scores. Children with profound unilateral hearing loss tended to have worse cognitive scores and had significantly lower oral language scores. Higher word recognition scores in quiet of the normal hearing ear were associated with higher cognitive, oral language, and reading achievement scores. Higher word recognition scores in noise were slightly correlated with higher oral language scores. Conclusions As expected, children with unilateral hearing loss had worse language scores than their siblings with normal hearing with trends toward worse cognitive scores. Children with profound unilateral hearing loss tended to have worse outcomes than children with normal hearing or less severe unilateral loss. However, there were no differences in outcomes between children with right or left unilateral hearing loss.

show abstract

Group Amplification in Schools for the Hearing Impaired

Cited by 37 publications

References 6 publications

Children with Minimal Conductive Hearing Impairment: Speech Comprehension in Noise

Children with Minimal Conductive Hearing Impairment: Speech Comprehension in Noise

Directional Hearing Aids

Do Audiologic Characteristics Predict Outcomes in Children With Unilateral Hearing Loss?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About