The Benefits of Remote Microphone Technology for Adults with Cochlear Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".