The Benefits of Remote Microphone Technology for Adults with Cochlear Implants
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Brief Objective: Cochlear implantation has become a standard practice for adults with severe to profound hearing loss who demonstrate limited benefit from hearing aids. Despite the substantial auditory benefits provided by cochlear implants, many adults experience difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments and in other challenging listening conditions such as television. Remote microphone technology may provide some benefit in these situations; however, little is known about whether these systems are effective in improving speech understanding in difficult acoustic environments for this population. This study was undertaken with adult cochlear implant recipients to assess the potential benefits of remote microphone technology. The objectives were to examine the measurable and perceived benefit of remote microphone devices during television viewing and to assess the benefits of a frequency-modulated system for speech understanding in noise. Design: Fifteen adult unilateral cochlear implant users were fit with remote microphone devices in a clinical environment. The study used a combination of direct measurements and patient perceptions to assess speech understanding with and without remote microphone technology. The direct measures involved a within-subject repeated-measures design. Direct measures of patients' speech understanding during television viewing were collected using their cochlear implant alone and with their implant device coupled to an assistive listening device. Questionnaires were administered to document patients' perceptions of benefits during the television-listening tasks. Speech recognition tests of open-set sentences in noise with and without remote microphone technology were also administered. Results: Participants showed improved speech understanding for television listening when using remote microphone devices coupled to their cochlear implant compared with a cochlear implant alone. This benefit was documented both when listening to news and talk show recordings. Questionnaire results also showed statistically significant differences between listening with a cochlear implant alone and listening with a remote microphone device. Participants judged that remote microphone technology provided them with better comprehension, more confidence, and greater ease of listening. Use of a frequency-modulated system coupled to a cochlear implant also showed significant improvement over a cochlear implant alone for open-set sentence recognition in +10 and +5 dB signal to noise ratios. Conclusions: Benefits were measured during remote microphone use in focused-listening situations in a clinical setting, for both television viewing and speech understanding in noise in the audiometric sound suite. The results suggest that adult cochlear implant users should be counseled regarding the potential for enhanced speech understanding in difficult listening environments through the use of remote microphone technology. This study compared speech understanding abilities in a group of adult cochlear implant users with their cochlear implant alone and with remote microphone technology. Adults showed better speech understanding for television-listening tasks as well as for sentence comprehension tests administered in the presence of noise. Questionnaire results indicated that participants judged that assistive listening devices provided them with better comprehension, more confidence, and greater ease of listening during television-listening activities. The results suggest that remote microphone devices can provide benefit for adult cochlear implant recipients in focused-listening situations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».