Individual Differences Offer Insight into Clinical Recommendations for Directional and Remote Microphone Technology Use in Children

• Published in: Journal of speech, language, and hearing research language, and hearing research, 2021-02, Vol.64 (2), p.635-650
• Main Authors: Gustafson, Samantha J, Ricketts, Todd A, Picou, Erin M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acoustics; Adolescents; Age Differences; Arousal Patterns; Assistive Technology; Audio Equipment; Audiology; Auditory Perception; Auditory Tests; Children; Children & youth; Classroom Environment; Classrooms; Clinical Diagnosis; Educational technology; Hearing (Physiology); Hearing aids; Hearing disorders; Hearing impaired children; Hearing Impairments; Hearing loss; Individual Differences; Influence; Learning; Listening; Listening Comprehension; Listening Skills; Microphones; National Standards; Noise; Patient outcomes; Prediction; Reaction time; Scores; Sensorineural hearing loss; Speech; Speech Communication; Speech Improvement; Speech perception; Speech tests; Task Analysis; Technology application; Transplants & implants; Voice recognition; Word Recognition
• ISSN: 1092-4388; 1558-9102
• DOI: 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00281

Purpose: This study sought to evaluate the effects of common hearing aid microphone technologies on speech recognition and listening effort, and to evaluate potential predictive factors related to microphone benefits for school-age children with hearing loss in a realistic listening situation. Method: Children (n = 17, ages 10-17 years) with bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss were fitted with hearing aids set to include three programs: omnidirectional, adaptive directional, and omnidirectional + remote microphone. Children completed a dual-task paradigm in a moderately reverberant room. The primary task included monosyllabic word recognition, with target speech presented at 60 dB A from 0° (front) or 180° (back) azimuth. The secondary task was a "go/no-go," visual shape-recognition task. Multitalker babble noise created a +5 dB SNR. Children were evaluated in two speaker conditions (front, back) using all three hearing aid programs. The remote microphone transmitter remained at the front speaker throughout testing. Speech recognition performance was calculated from the primary task while listening effort was measured as response time during the secondary task. Results: Speech presented from the back significantly increased listening effort and caused a reduction in speech perception when directional and remote microphones were used. Considerable variability was found in pattern of benefit across microphones and source location. Clinical measures did not predict benefit patterns with directional or remote microphones; however, child age and performance with omnidirectional microphones did. Conclusions: When compared to a traditional omnidirectional setting, the directional and remote microphone configurations evaluated in this study have the potential to provide benefit for some children and increase difficulty for others when used in dynamic environments. A child's performance with omnidirectional hearing aids could be used to better inform clinical recommendations for these technologies.