American Journal of Audiology Vol.13 62-72 June 2004. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2004/009)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Iglehart, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Iglehart, F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Speech Perception by Students With Cochlear Implants Using Sound-Field Systems in Classrooms

Frank Iglehart 1

1 Clarke School for the Deaf, Northampton, MA

figlehart{at}clarkeschool.org

Cochlear implants support deaf students' language development through the improved use of audition in the classroom. Unfortunately, the acoustics of typical classrooms greatly reduce auditory speech perception by these students. Sound-field systems can increase speech-to-noise ratios in classrooms and thus improve use of audition. These systems are used by 80% of students with cochlear implants who use an FM system in the classroom. The present study compares speech perception by 14 school-age cochlear implant recipients via 2 classroom sound-field systems, 1 wall-mounted and the other a personal, or desktop, system. Testing was conducted in 2 classroom environments, 1 noisy and reverberant (typical of many classrooms) and the other ideally quiet with reverberation of short duration. In the quiet room with low reverberation, both sound-field systems produced improved phoneme recognition, but there was no difference between the 2. In the noisy room with high reverberation, the sound-field benefits were greater, and the desktop systems provided more benefit than the wall-mounted systems.

Key Words: speech perception, cochlear implant, sound-field systems, classroom acoustics, children

Submitted on June 13, 2003
Accepted on January 7, 2004


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
A. M. Rekkedal
Assistive Hearing Technologies Among Students With Hearing Impairment: Factors That Promote Satisfaction
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., October 1, 2012; 17(4): 499 - 517.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Communication Disorders QuarterlyHome page
M. V. Compton, D. A. Tucker, and P. F. Flynn
Preparation and Perceptions of Speech-Language Pathologists Working With Children With Cochlear Implants
Communication Disorders Quarterly, May 1, 2009; 30(3): 142 - 154.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Hearing and Hearing Disorders in ChildhoodHome page
E. C. Schafer
Selecting the Optimal FM System for Children With Cochlear Implants
Hearing and Hearing Disorders in Childhood, March 1, 2008; 18(1): 19 - 24.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]