Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To compare the benefits of adaptive FM and fixed FM systems through measurement of speech recognition in noise with adults and students in clinical and real-world settings. METHOD: Five adults and 5 students with moderate-to-severe hearing loss completed objective and subjective speech recognition in noise measures with the 2 types of FM processing. Sentence recognition was evaluated in a classroom for 5 competing noise levels ranging from 54 to 80 dBA while the FM microphone was positioned 6 in. from the signal loudspeaker to receive input at 84 dB SPL. The subjective measures included 2 classroom activities and 6 auditory lessons in a noisy, public aquarium. RESULTS: On the objective measures, adaptive FM processing resulted in significantly better speech recognition in noise than fixed FM processing for 68- and 73-dBA noise levels. On the subjective measures, all individuals preferred adaptive over fixed processing for half of the activities. Adaptive processing was also preferred by most (8-9) individuals for the remaining 4 activities. CONCLUSION: The adaptive FM processing resulted in significant improvements at the higher noise levels and was preferred by the majority of participants in most of the conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Linda Thibodeau (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: