Affiliation:
1. The Ohio State University, Columbus
2. James H. Quillen VA Medical Center, Audiology (126), Mountain Home, TN 37684
3. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dayton, OH
Abstract
During a hearing loss management workshop, 10 listeners with normal hearing sensitivity and 18 listeners with sensorineural hearing loss compared four group assistive listening devices (ALDs)—FM, induction loop, infrared, and soundfield amplification—to no system. Listeners with hearing loss were tested using the ALDs alone and using the ALDs inductively coupled to personal in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aids. Significant improvements in word recognition ability with the FM, induction loop, and infrared systems were noted in listeners with normal hearing and with all ALD systems in listeners with hearing loss, as compared to performance with no system. Listeners with hearing loss performed better and preferred using the FM, induction loop, and infrared systems with headsets, but preferred the soundfield amplification system with their hearing aids. Both groups of listeners preferred the FM system over other systems in terms of performance, comfort, and ease of use.
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Reference47 articles.
1. Reliability of the modified rhyme test for hearing;Bell D. W.;Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,1972
2. Assistive listening devices...Part I: New responsibilities;Bergman M.;Asha,1983
3. Young-adult students’ ratings of the relative performance of hearing aids, FM, and loop application systems;Bricault M. L.;Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology,1985
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献