Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Frequency Modulation Devices in Improving Academic Outcomes in Children With Auditory Processing Difficulties

Abstract

This systematic review describes the published evidence related to the effectiveness of frequency modulation (FM) devices in improving academic outcomes in children with auditory processing difficulties. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards were used to identify articles published between January 2003 and March 2014. The Cochrane Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study Design approach and the American Occupational Therapy Association process forms were used to guide the article selection and evaluation process. Of the 83 articles screened, 7 matched the systematic review inclusion criteria. Findings were consistently positive, although limitations were identified. Results of this review indicate moderate support for the use of FM devices to improve children’s ability to listen and attend in the classroom and mixed evidence to improve specific academic performance areas. FM technology should be considered for school-age children with auditory processing impairments who are receiving occupational therapy services to improve functioning in the school setting.

Keywords

acoustic stimulation auditory perceptual disorders educational status treatment outcome

Most classrooms in the United States rely on oral communication for academic and social interaction; directions are read aloud, questions are answered verbally, and lectures are used to deliver educational content (Yang & Bradley, 2009). This style of instruction relies heavily on the student’s ability to decode and process auditory information efficiently and effectively. Classroom noise and poor classroom acoustics have a detrimental effect on students’ learning, specifically the ability to accurately perceive speech and attend during auditory instruction (Dockrell & Shield, 2012; Klatte, Bergström, & Lachmann, 2013).

Classroom noise can be internal (e.g., children talking, humming of projection systems, materials shifting) and external (e.g., lawn equipment, street traffic, children on the playground, students in the hallway) and may interfere with a student’s ability to process relevant aspects of acoustic signals (Shield & Dockrell, 2008). The negative effects of classroom noise are further exacerbated by reverberation, or the extended presence of a sound caused by reflection against surfaces such as desks or chairs (American Speech–Language–Hearing Association [ASHA], 2005). Longer reverberation time may lead to cognitive fatigue and greater distraction during academic instruction (Kjellberg, 2004). Although classroom noise and reverberation may affect all children, the negative outcomes appear to be particularly salient for children with learning disorders and other special needs (Bradlow, Kraus, & Hayes, 2003; Shield & Dockrell, 2008).

Auditory processing disorder (APD) is frequently diagnosed in school-age children. Its primary symptom is difficulty identifying or discriminating sounds despite having normal peripheral hearing; poor ability to understand speech in noise is the most common manifestation (Dawes & Bishop, 2009). Children with APD may have difficulty with academic tasks that involve dichotic listening (i.e., processing sounds from more than one speaker), processing rapid speech, or integrating binaural input (Johnston, John, Kreisman, Hall, & Crandell, 2009). Children with APD often have diminished skills in reading and writing and impairments in attention and concentration.

Unsurprisingly, APD is widely diagnosed in children with learning disabilities (Dawes & Bishop, 2009). Warrier, Johnson, Hayes, Nichol, and Kraus (2004) demonstrated that children with learning problems exhibit neural timing abnormalities such that their neurophysiological representation of speech sounds becomes distorted in the presence of background noise. Similarly, people with dyslexia have been shown to have temporal auditory processing and figure ground alterations (Oliveira, Murphy, & Schochat, 2013; Soares, Sanches, Alves, Carvallo, & Cárnio, 2013), as well as asynchrony between auditory and visual processing speeds (Sela, 2014). Reading and spelling tasks in particular have been shown to be influenced by classroom babble in children receiving special education services (Shield & Dockrell, 2008). Other school-age populations may also present with auditory processing problems and secondarily be influenced negatively by background noise and reverberation; these populations include children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or other disorders with known impairments in central auditory processing (Bailey, 2012; Chermak, Hall, & Musiek, 1999; Edgar et al., 2014; Rance, Saunders, Carew, Johansson, & Tan, 2014; Tierney, Kurtz, & Souders, 2012).

Although guidelines for classroom acoustics have been established by ASHA (2005), classrooms in the United States rarely meet these criteria (Acoustical Society of America, 2014). This finding suggests that other strategies may need to be used for children to perform optimally in the classroom environment. Environmentally based strategies focused on modifying acoustics are a feasible and potentially high-impact option and an area of expertise of occupational therapy practitioners. Frequency modulation (FM) devices are one possible option to implement these modifications.

Frequency modulation is a wireless sound transmission method used to optimize the listening environment by improving the signal-to-noise ratio and minimizing the effects of reverberation. FM devices consist of two main parts, a radio transmitter and a radio receiver. Speech signals are detected by a lapel microphone worn by the speaker or teacher, then transmitted by radio waves to a receiver worn by the listener (personal system) or a loudspeaker placed close to the listener (classroom system). The FM unit allows the speaker’s voice to predominate while reducing background noise (Chisolm, Noe, McArdle, & Abrams, 2007).

Personal FM devices are well documented as an evidence-based strategy for people who have hearing impairments or difficulty hearing over distance (Fitzpatrick et al., 2010; Schafer, Huynh, Romine, & Jimenez, 2013; Schafer & Thibodeau, 2006; Thibodeau, 2010). Recent literature has also begun to show the benefits of FM devices for children without hearing impairments but with other auditory processing concerns. School-based occupational therapy practitioners are often called on to collaborate with educational teams regarding strategies to improve academic performance for students with various sensory processing problems. Therefore, practitioners may be involved in clinical decisions related to implementation of FM devices for students on their caseload. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether FM devices are associated with improved academic outcomes in children and adolescents ages 5–21 yr with auditory processing concerns but without primary hearing impairments to support evidence-based practice.

Method

Before initiating a literature search, we established a protocol using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009). We strategically searched four databases—PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews—and did a secondary selection of articles based on a review of references in relevant articles. Following PRISMA guidelines, we reviewed the titles of all articles for appropriateness, then reviewed relevant abstracts and appraised full-text articles. Selection was based on preestablished inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and generated concordance rates. A third author was available to settle disagreements; any discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus.

The search strategy was initiated using the following Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS) question: Are FM assistive listening devices effective in improving academic outcomes in school-age children with auditory processing disorders but without a primary hearing impairment? Search terms included assistive listening device, FM device, and FM system. Only articles published between January 2003 and March 2014 were considered; nonelectronic sources of literature and articles written in a language other than English were not considered. Specific search limits for each database are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Database Search Limits

Database	Study Design Criteria	Other Limits
PubMed	Review, systematic review, meta-analysis, clinical trial, randomized controlled trial, comparative study, case report	Participants: Children ages birth–18 Language: English Years of publication: 10 yr
Web of Science	Research article	Categories: Pediatrics, audiology and speech–language pathology, acoustics, rehabilitation, engineering biomedical, neurosciences Language: English Years of publication: 2003–2014
CINAHL	Research article, scholarly (peer-reviewed) journal	Participants: All children Language: English Years of publication: 2003–2014
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews	Systematic review	Language: English Years of publication: 2003–2014

The population was defined as children and adolescents ages 5–21 with a diagnosed or suspected auditory processing disorder but without primary hearing loss. Children with disorders such as ASD, ADHD, and learning disabilities, which are known to have accompanying auditory processing deficits, were included. Children with cochlear implants, hearing aids, or other types of corrective hearing devices were not considered.

To meet the inclusion criteria for intervention, each publication needed to report on the use of a personal FM device or classroom FM system lasting a total of 4 wk or more. Studies using infrared sound field systems were not included, nor were studies in which the assistive listening device used was not clearly described as using FM. No comparative intervention or population was required.

The studies included were required to assess academic outcomes including (but not limited to) improved sound discrimination in the classroom, reading scores, general academic performance, phonological awareness, speech perception, and attention. All publications were required to include a description of assessments used to measure outcomes and statistical procedures used for determining changes in performance.

Standards established by the National Guideline Clearinghouse and accepted by the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA, 2014b) for assessing levels of evidence were used to evaluate the study design quality of the articles reviewed (Figure 1). Only studies with a Level III rating or above were included. Therefore, studies that used a case-series design or a poor-quality cohort or case-control design or that consisted of expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal were excluded.

Figure 1.

Levels of evidence (AOTA, 2014b).

Results

Initial search strategies of the four databases yielded 257 articles, with an additional 15 records identified through reference review and supplemental searches on key authors (Figure 2). After duplicates were removed and titles were screened for relevance, a total of 83 articles remained. Within the screened publications, randomized and nonrandomized experimental studies were represented, as were descriptive studies, narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and case reports. Of the 83 abstracts screened, 71 were excluded with reasons, whereas 7 appeared to match the PICOS inclusion criteria. An additional 5 articles did not have enough information in the abstract to justify exclusion, received the designation maybe, and were included in the next phase of the review.

Figure 2.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram of published literature search.

Interrater agreement was 91.6% for inclusion and exclusion decisions and 84.3% for level of evidence ratings. A comprehensive list of the reviewed abstracts with rationale for exclusion is presented in Supplemental Table 1 (available online at http://otjournal.net; navigate to this article, and click on “Supplemental”). On the basis of the established exclusion criteria, 63 studies were omitted because of population criteria (88.7%), 51 studies because of intervention criteria (71.8%), 39 studies because they did not use required outcome measures (54.9%), and 29 studies because they did not fit the criteria for study design (40.8%).

A total of 12 articles were assessed for eligibility through a full-text review. Each article was read by two of the three authors and evaluated using the preestablished inclusion and exclusion criteria and level of evidence rating. Interrater agreement was 100% for inclusion and exclusion criteria and 83% for evidence level ratings. Five articles did not meet inclusion criteria and were therefore excluded (Supplemental Table 2; available online at http://otjournal.net). Seven studies met all inclusion criteria: 1 article ranked at Level I (Sharma, Purdy, & Kelly, 2012), 4 ranked at level II (Hornickel, Zecker, Bradlow, & Kraus, 2012; Johnston et al., 2009; Schafer, Mathews, et al., 2013; Umat, Mukari, Ezan, & Din, 2011), and 2 ranked at Level III (Rance, Corben, Du Bourg, King, & Delatycki, 2010; Rance et al., 2014). Of the 7 included articles, all examined use of personal FM devices, and none reported outcomes for a classroom FM system. Supplemental Table 3 (available online at http://otjournal.net) identifies the characteristics of all seven articles meeting inclusion criteria, including all PICOS components.

Study Design

Of the 7 articles identified for an in-depth review, the study designs included 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT; Sharma et al., 2012) and 6 quasi-experimental studies. Of the 6 quasi-experimental studies, 2 used a within-groups (ABBA) design (Rance et al., 2010, 2014), 2 used a group comparison design with a typically developing control population (Johnston et al., 2009; Schafer, Mathews, et al., 2013), and 2 used a group comparison design with a diagnostic control group (Hornickel et al., 2012; Umat et al., 2011).

Statistical procedures used within these articles included paired t tests and analysis of variance models. Most articles reviewed used a p value of ≤.05 to identify statistically significant associations. However, Hornickel and colleagues (2012) set their α level at .10 for one-tailed t tests and at .05 for two-tailed t tests, whereas Sharma and colleagues (2012) established their α level at .01 for all analysis of variance models.

Population

A total of 211 participants were enrolled in the included studies, 187 with auditory processing impairments and 24 control participants without auditory processing impairments. Of the 187 children with auditory processing impairments, 118 had a primary diagnosis of APD, 38 were diagnosed with dyslexia, 17 had ASD, 10 were diagnosed with Friedreich’s ataxia, and 4 had ADHD. Approximately 68% of participants were male. The age range for most studies was 7–15 yr; however, 1 study included participants up to age 42 yr (Rance et al., 2010) and was included in the review because 50% of the participants were of school age. Two studies included only children from private specialty schools, which accounted for 93 of the 211 participants (44%).

Intervention

All 7 of the included articles reported using Phonak (Zurich, Switzerland) personal FM devices. In all 7 studies, FM receivers were fitted to participants binaurally. One study (Umat et al., 2011) also included a subgroup of children who wore unilateral receivers. The intensity and duration of intervention varied greatly among studies. The timeframe of the FM intervention varied from 4 wk to 8 mo. Four studies reported a short duration (4–6 wk; Rance et al., 2010, 2014; Schafer, Mathews, et al., 2013; Sharma et al., 2012), 1 an intermediate duration (12 wk; Umat et al., 2011), and 2 a longer duration (5–8 mo; Hornickel et al., 2012; Johnston et al., 2009).

All 7 studies recommended daily use of the FM devices during the school week. Three articles reported intervention lasting 4–6 hr/day (Hornickel et al., 2012; Rance et al., 2014; Umat et al., 2011), 1 article reported intervention lasting 1–5 hr per day (Rance et al., 2010), 1 article reported intervention lasting 45 min/day during reading and math only (Schafer, Mathews, et al., 2013), 1 article reported use of intervention only during lectures (no time amount specified; Johnston et al., 2009), and 1 article did not specify how many hours per day the FM device was worn (Sharma et al., 2012). All 7 studies indicated that the device was worn at school; only 1 specified that home use was encouraged but not directly measured (Johnston et al., 2009).

In all 7 studies, research staff fitted the FM devices and set volume levels. Although not consistently reported, research staff appeared to originate from a variety of academic departments, including otolaryngology, audiology, speech–language pathology, psychology, neurology, and speech and hearing sciences. Regular monitoring of the FM devices (e.g., checking volume levels, battery life, and general use) throughout the intervention was not always reported. Two studies noted daily monitoring by research staff (Schafer, Mathews, et al., 2013; Umat et al., 2011), and 1 study reported weekly monitoring by research staff (Hornickel et al., 2012). Only 1 study indicated that the students were trained to monitor their own devices and change batteries independently (Johnston et al., 2009).

Outcomes

Because children with auditory processing impairments are likely to have difficulty registering, recognizing, and processing verbal instructions in an academic setting, the primary outcome measure used in FM intervention studies is often speech perception and recognition. In this review, 6 of the 7 studies measured speech perception or recognition, or both, with 5 of the 6 studies demonstrating statistically significant improvements in these areas with FM use (Table 2). Tools used to measure speech perception and recognition included the Hearing in Noise Test, the Modified Bamford–Kowal–Bench Speech-in-Noise Test, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, and auditory brainstem responses to speech. Changes in classroom behaviors associated with listening and attention were also measured in 3 studies (Johnston et al., 2009; Rance et al., 2014; Schafer, Mathews, et al., 2013), with improvements seen in all 3 under FM intervention conditions. Measures of classroom behaviors included direct observation of on-task versus off-task behavior and the Listening Inventory for Education, a teacher-report questionnaire.

Table 2.

Summary of Outcomes, by Evidence Level

Citation	Speech Perception and Recognition	Classroom Listening Behaviors	Academic Performance
Level I
Sharma, Purdy, & Kelly (2012)	→	ΝΑ	↑
Level 2
Hornickel, Zecker, Bradlow, & Kraus (2012)	↑	ΝΑ	↑
Johnston, John, Kreisman, Hall, & Crandell (2009)	↑	↑	→
Schafer, Mathews, et al. (2013)	↑	↑	→
Umat, Mukari, Ezan, & Din (2011)	ΝΑ	ΝΑ	↑
Level 3
Rance, Corben, Du Bourg, King, & Delatycki (2010)	↑	ΝΑ	ΝΑ
Rance, Saunders, Carew, Johansson, & Tan (2014)	↑	↑	ΝΑ

Note. ↑ = statistically significant improvements in identified area; → = no change identified in this area; NA = not applicable (item not measured in study).

Academic performance was measured in 5 of the 7 studies considered in this review (Hornickel et al., 2012; Johnston et al., 2009; Schafer, Mathews, et al., 2013; Sharma et al., 2012; Umat et al., 2011). Positive changes were noted with FM use in the areas of reading (measured by the Woodcock–Johnson III); sentence recall (measured by the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals); nonword spelling and syllable segmentation (measured by the Queensland University Inventory of Literacy); and working memory, best learning, and retention of information (measured by the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test). These measures are all objective performance measures. No changes in academic performance were found when a parent- or teacher-report tool, the Screening Instruments For Targeting Educational Risk, was used to identify changes in academic performance after FM use (Johnston et al., 2009; Schafer, Mathews, et al., 2013).

Discussion

This systematic review found moderate evidence to suggest that personal FM devices for children with auditory processing impairments may be effective in improving academic outcomes related to speech perception and recognition in the classroom and classroom listening behaviors. On the basis of AOTA’s (2014a) Guidelines for Systematic Reviews, moderate evidence indicates that “one RCT or two or more studies with lower levels of evidence” (p. 4) demonstrate significant and positive outcomes for the intervention. Six of the studies included in the review had outcomes related to speech perception and recognition. Five studies (3 Level II and 2 Level III) demonstrated significant improvements, and 1 (Level I) study demonstrated no changes in speech perception and recognition. Three of the studies (2 Level II and 1 Level III) measured classroom listening behaviors; all 3 studies reported significant improvements when using the personal FM devices. Finally, 3 of 5 studies (1 Level I and 2 Level II) demonstrated significant improvements in specific areas of academic performance, whereas 2 studies demonstrated no improvements. Although support for improvements was found in the majority of the studies, the evidence is considered mixed for improving academic performance.

The lack of homogeneity in the measurement tools used and in the diagnostic conditions examined limits the ability to make in-depth comparisons or to summarize the findings across all studies. However, when objective, performance-based tools were used, findings consistently indicated improvements with use of FM devices across diagnostic groups. Therefore, on the basis of the results of the systematic review, occupational therapy practitioners may consider FM devices to be one of the possible classroom modifications suggested to educational teams to improve academic outcomes for students with auditory processing difficulties.

Several limitations found in the studies reviewed limit the strength of the current knowledge base. First, many of the studies included in the review were of inadequate sample size to allow for multivariate statistical analysis of data and therefore used multiple t test comparisons. Use of multiple t tests, particularly without any type of statistical adjustment, increases the risk of Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of finding significance by chance). Second, the lack of randomization in 6 of 7 articles reviewed suggests that selection bias may also have been a factor, along with the potential for performance or detection bias because no studies reported use of blinding techniques (see Supplemental Table 4 for risk of bias ratings; available online at http://otjournal.net).

Limitations and Future Research

This review was limited to articles published in English and available in full text. Furthermore, we excluded studies with children who did not have auditory processing impairments but may also have benefited from the use of FM systems, such as children who are learning in English-speaking classrooms but speak English as a second language. Because the current review focused on the use of FM technology, articles were excluded that used other types of assistive listening technology, such as classroom infrared systems (also known as sound-field systems). Literature is available on the use of these systems and should be considered in future reviews.

Outcomes of this systematic review highlight the need for additional high-quality, highly powered studies on the use of FM technology to improve academic outcomes in children with auditory processing disorders and other neurodevelopmental disorders that have associated auditory processing impairments. The rigor of future studies can be improved by increasing sample size, including both diagnostic and nondiagnostic control groups; randomizing group assignment and concealing group allocation (to decrease selection bias); blinding participants and personnel (to decrease performance bias); using objective performance-based measures that have established reliability and validity; monitoring and recording the intensity and duration of device use; and using multivariate statistics for data analysis to reduce the likelihood of Type I statistical errors. Because none of the studies reviewed included children below age 7 yr, future studies (including future reviews) may consider including preschool and early school-age children because these ages are of primary importance for the development of foundational language, social, and reading abilities.

Implications for Occupational Therapy Practice

Almost a quarter of the occupational therapy workforce works in schools or with school-age children (AOTA, 2010). Part of the role of school-based occupational therapy practitioners is to support academic outcomes and social participation by promoting occupation within the classroom and other school environments. This systematic review has the following implications for occupational therapy practice:

FM technology is an evidence-based strategy to help children function in their school setting. FM technology may be useful in enhancing speech perception and recognition in school-based settings and may help improve classroom behaviors. Initial support is also provided for improvements in specific academic performance areas.

Because FM devices in the reviewed studies were set up and monitored by research staff from a variety of academic departments, it is not clear which clinical professionals would take the lead on FM system implementation in school settings. Likely the lead professionals will vary depending on the school and school system in question. Occupational therapy practitioners’ role may vary accordingly, with responsibilities ranging from simply suggesting device use at team meetings to taking the lead on purchasing FM systems for children within the school system and setting up plans for teacher and educator trainings and programs for device monitoring and technical support.

Whatever their role, occupational therapy practitioners work as part of a larger team of school-based professionals. Interdisciplinary collaboration is encouraged among occupational therapy practitioners, audiologists, speech–language pathologists, teachers, and other team members in implementing modifications such as FM technology to improve the learning environment.

Supplemental Materials

Supplemental Material

Supplementary material for Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Frequency Modulation Devices in Improving Academic Outcomes in Children With Auditory Processing Difficulties

Supplementary material, sj-pdf-1-aot-10.5014_ajot.2016.016832.pdf for Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Frequency Modulation Devices in Improving Academic Outcomes in Children With Auditory Processing Difficulties by Stacey Reynolds, Heather Miller Kuhaneck and Beth Pfeiffer in The American Journal of Occupational Therapy

7001220030p1_ds001.pdf

Supplementary material for Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Frequency Modulation Devices in Improving Academic Outcomes in Children With Auditory Processing Difficulties

Supplementary material, sj-pdf-2-aot-10.5014_ajot.2016.016832.pdf for Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Frequency Modulation Devices in Improving Academic Outcomes in Children With Auditory Processing Difficulties by Stacey Reynolds, Heather Miller Kuhaneck and Beth Pfeiffer in The American Journal of Occupational Therapy

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Pediatric Research Interest and Mentoring Group (PRIME) for their collaboration and idea generation, which provided a launching point for this project. We also acknowledge the AOTA for supporting the PRIME and pediatric research in the profession.

*

Indicates studies that were systematically reviewed for this article.

References

Acoustical Society of America. (2014). Classroom acoustics: Standards. Retrieved from http://acousticalsociety.org/about_acoustics/acoustics_of_classrooms

American Occupational Therapy Association. (2010). Workforce trends in occupational therapy. Retrieved from http://www.aota.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/EducationCareers/Prospective/Workforce-trends-in-OT.PDF

American Occupational Therapy Association. (2014a). Guidelines for systematic reviews. Retrieved from http://ajot.submit2aota.org/journals/ajot/forms/systematic_reviews.pdf

American Occupational Therapy Association. (2014b). Guidelines to critically appraised paper (CAP) worksheet evidence exchange. Retrieved from http://www.aota.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Practice/EvidenceExchange/CAP%20Guidelines%20for%20Evidence%20Exchange.pdf

American Speech–Language–Hearing Association. (2005). Acoustics in educational settings: Position statement. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/policy/PS2005-00028/

Anderson

K. L.

, & Goldstein

(2004). Speech perception benefits of FM and infrared devices to children with hearing aids in a typical classroom. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 169–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2004/017)

Bailey

(2012). Beyond DSM: The role of auditory processing in attention and its disorders. Applied Neuropsychology Child, 1, 112–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2012.703890

Baudhuin

Cadieux

Firszt

J. B.

Reeder

R. M.

, & Maxson

J. L.

(2012). Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 23, 302–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.23.5.2

Beijen

Mylanus

E. A.

, & Snik

A. F.

(2007). Education qualification levels and school careers of unilateral versus bilateral hearing aid users. Clinical Otolaryngology, 32, 86–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2273.2007.01411.x

10.

Bosman

A. J.

Snik

A. F. M.

Hol

M. K. S.

, & Mylanus

E. A.

(2013). Evaluation of a new powerful bone-anchored hearing system: A comparison study. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 24, 505–513. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.24.6.6

11.

Bradlow

A. R.

Kraus

, & Hayes

(2003). Speaking clearly for children with learning disabilities: Sentence perception in noise. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 80–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2003/007)

12.

Brennan

S. K.

Brooke

R. E.

Stevens

J. C.

, & Brown

B. H.

(2010). Effect of varying phase between frequency and amplitude modulation on bone conduction auditory steady state responses. Ear and Hearing, 31, 815–824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181e508f6

13.

Briggs

Davidson

, & Lieu

J. E.

(2011). Outcomes of conventional amplification for pediatric unilateral hearing loss. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 120, 448–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000348941112000705

14.

Cameron

Brown

Keith

Martin

Watson

, & Dillon

(2009). Development of the North American Listening in Spatialized Noise–Sentences test (NA LiSN–S): Sentence equivalence, normative data, and test–retest reliability studies. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 20, 128–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.20.2.6

15.

Cameron

, & Dillon

(2007). The Listening in Spatialized Noise–Sentences test (LISN–S): Test–retest reliability study. International Journal of Audiology, 46, 145–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020601164170

16.

Chermak

G. D.

Hall

J. W.

3rd , & Musiek

F. E.

(1999). Differential diagnosis and management of central auditory processing disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 289–303.

17.

Chermak

G. D.

Silva

M. E.

Nye

Hasbrouck

, & Musiek

F. E.

(2007). An update on professional education and clinical practices in central auditory processing. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 428–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.5.7

18.

Chiang

H. Y.

, & Jacobs

(2009). Effect of computer-based instruction on students’ self-perception and functional task performance. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 4, 106–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17483100802613693

19.

Chisolm

T. H.

Noe

C. M.

McArdle

, & Abrams

(2007). Evidence for the use of hearing assistive technology by adults: The role of the FM system. Trends in Amplification, 11, 73–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1084713807300879

20.

Clark

, & Sörqvist

(2012). A 3 year update on the influence of noise on performance and behavior. Noise and Health, 14, 292–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.104896

21.

Colver

A. F.

Dickinson

H. O.

Parkinson

Arnaud

Beckung

Fauconnier

, . . . Thyen

(2011). Access of children with cerebral palsy to the physical, social and attitudinal environment they need: A cross-sectional European study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33, 28–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2010.485669

22.

Convery

, & Keidser

(2011). Transitioning hearing aid users with severe and profound loss to a new gain/frequency response: Benefit, perception, and acceptance. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 22, 168–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.22.3.5

23.

Dawes

, & Bishop

(2009). Auditory processing disorder in relation to developmental disorders of language, communication and attention: A review and critique. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 44, 440–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13682820902929073

24.

DiGiovanni

J. J.

, & Pratt

R. M.

(2010). Verification of in situ thresholds and integrated real-ear measurements. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21, 663–670. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.21.10.6

25.

Ding

, & Simon

J. Z.

(2009). Neural representations of complex temporal modulations in the human auditory cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 102, 2731–2743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00523.2009

26.

C. T.

Pastor

, & Goalic

(2010). On normalized MSE analysis of speech fundamental frequency in the cochlear implant-like spectrally reduced speech. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 57, 572–577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2009.2031097

27.

Dockrell

J. E.

, & Shield

(2012). The impact of sound-field systems on learning and attention in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 1163–1176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0026)

28.

Dogil

Frese

Haider

Röhm

, & Wokurek

(2004). Where and how does grammatically geared processing take place—and why is Broca’s area often involved? A coordinated fMRI/ERBP study of language processing. Brain and Language, 89, 337–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00354-7

29.

Edgar

J. C.

Lanza

M. R.

Daina

A. B.

Monroe

J. F.

Khan

S. Y.

Blaskey

, . . . Roberts

T. P.

(2014). Missing and delayed auditory responses in young and older children with autism spectrum disorders. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 417.

30.

Fink

Furst

, & Muchnik

(2012). Improving word recognition in noise among hearing-impaired subjects with a single-channel cochlear noise-reduction algorithm. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132, 1718–1731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4739441

31.

Fitzpatrick

E. M.

Fournier

Séguin

Armstrong

Chénier

, & Schramm

(2010). Users’ perspectives on the benefits of FM systems with cochlear implants. International Journal of Audiology, 49, 44–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992020903202512

32.

Fitzpatrick

E. M.

Séguin

Schramm

D. R.

Armstrong

, & Chénier

(2009). The benefits of remote microphone technology for adults with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 30, 590–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181acfb70

33.

Fogerty

(2011a). Perceptual weighting of individual and concurrent cues for sentence intelligibility: Frequency, envelope, and fine structure. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129, 977–988. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3531954

34.

Fogerty

(2011b). Perceptual weighting of the envelope and fine structure across frequency bands for sentence intelligibility: Effect of interruption at the syllabic-rate and periodic-rate of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130, 489–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3592220

35.

Hafter

E. R.

(2010). Is there a hearing aid for the thinking person? Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21, 594–600. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.21.9.5

36.

Hartley

Rochtchina

Newall

Golding

, & Mitchell

(2010). Use of hearing aids and assistive listening devices in an older Australian population. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21, 642–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.21.10.4

37.

Hickson

(2006). Rehabilitation approaches to promote successful unilateral and bilateral fittings and avoid inappropriate prescription. International Journal of Audiology, 45(Suppl. 1), S72–S77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020600782907

38.

Hornickel

Zecker

S. G.

Bradlow

A. R.

, & Kraus

(2012). Assistive listening devices drive neuroplasticity in children with dyslexia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 16731–16736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206628109

39.

Hughes

M. L.

, & Stille

L. J.

(2008). Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 29, 435–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31816a0d3d

40.

Iglehart

(2004). Speech perception by students with cochlear implants using sound-field systems in classrooms. American Journal of Audiology, 13, 62–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2004/009)

41.

Ives

D. T.

Calcus

Kalluri

Strelcyk

Sheft

, & Lorenzi

(2013). Effects of noise reduction on AM and FM perception. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 14, 149–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-012-0358-8

42.

Johnson

E. E.

(2013). Prescriptive amplification recommendations for hearing losses with a conductive component and their impact on the required maximum power output: An update with accompanying clinical explanation. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 24, 452–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.24.6.2

43.

Johnston

K. N.

John

A. B.

Kreisman

N. V.

Hall

J. W.

3rd , & Crandell

C. C.

(2009). Multiple benefits of personal FM system use by children with auditory processing disorder (APD). International Journal of Audiology, 48, 371–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020802687516

44.

Kenna

M. A.

(2004). Medical management of childhood hearing loss. Pediatric Annals, 33, 822–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/0090-4481-20041201-08

45.

King

A. M.

(2010). The national protocol for paediatric amplification in Australia. International Journal of Audiology, 49(Suppl. 1), S64–S69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992020903329422

46.

Kjellberg

(2004). Effects of reverberation time on the cognitive load in speech communication: Theoretical considerations. Noise and Health, 7, 11–21.

47.

Klatte

Bergström

, & Lachmann

(2013). Does noise affect learning? A short review on noise effects on cognitive performance in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 578. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00578

48.

Koul

, & Hester

(2006). Effects of repeated listening experiences on the recognition of synthetic speech by individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 47–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/004)

49.

Kuk

Jackson

Keenan

, & Lau

C. C.

(2008). Personal amplification for school-age children with auditory processing disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 19, 465–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.19.6.3

50.

Kuppler

Lewis

, & Evans

A. K.

(2013). A review of unilateral hearing loss and academic performance: Is it time to reassess traditional dogmata? International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 77, 617–622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.01.014

51.

Larsen

J. B.

, & Blair

J. C.

(2008). The effect of classroom amplification on the signal-to-noise ratio in classrooms while class is in session. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services, 39, 451–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0032)

52.

Larsen

J. B.

Vega

, & Ribera

J. E.

(2008). The effect of room acoustics and sound-field amplification on word recognition performance in young adult listeners in suboptimal listening conditions. American Journal of Audiology, 17, 50–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2008/006)

53.

LeBlanc

B. M.

(2004). A public school cued speech program for children with hearing loss and special learning needs. Volta Review, 104, 327–338.

54.

Lesner

S. A.

(2003). Candidacy and management of assistive listening devices: Special needs of the elderly. International Journal of Audiology, 42(Suppl. 2), S68–S76. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992020309074647

55.

Luft

Bonello

, & Zirzow

N. K.

(2009). Technology skills assessment for deaf and hard of hearing students in secondary school. American Annals of the Deaf, 154, 389–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aad.0.0106

56.

Luts

Maj

J. B.

Soede

, & Wouters

(2004). Better speech perception in noise with an assistive multimicrophone array for hearing aids. Ear and Hearing, 25, 411–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.aud.0000145109.90767.ba

57.

McInerney

, & Walden

(2013). Evaluating the use of an assistive listening device for communication efficiency using the Diapix task: A pilot study. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 65, 25–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000350490

58.

Mendel

L. L.

Roberts

R. A.

, & Walton

J. H.

(2003). Speech perception benefits from sound field FM amplification. American Journal of Audiology, 12, 114–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2003/019)

59.

Mendi

, & Bayrak

(2013). Text-to-audiovisual speech synthesizer for children with learning disabilities. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health, 19, 31–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2011.0114

60.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, & Altman

D. G.

; PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1006–1012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005

61.

Nelson

L. H.

Poole

, & Muñoz

(2013). Preschool teachers’ perception and use of hearing assistive technology in educational settings. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 239–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0038)

62.

Nelson

Kohnert

Sabur

, & Shaw

(2005). Classroom noise and children learning through a second language: Double jeopardy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 219–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2005/022)

63.

Odelius

, & Johansson

(2010). Self-assessment of classroom assistive listening devices. International Journal of Audiology, 49, 508–517. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992021003645886

64.

Oliveira

J. C.

Murphy

C. F. B.

, & Schochat

(2013). Auditory processing in children with dyslexia: Electrophysiological and behavior evaluation. CoDAS, 25, 39–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2317-17822013000100008

65.

Ortmann

A. J.

Palmer

C. V.

, & Pratt

S. R.

(2010). Impact of spectrally asynchronous delays on consonant voicing perception. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21, 493–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.21.8.2

66.

Paltoglou

A. E.

Sumner

C. J.

, & Hall

D. A.

(2011). Mapping feature-sensitivity and attentional modulation in human auditory cortex with functional magnetic resonance imaging. European Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 1733–1741. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07656.x

67.

Pan-ngum

Soonrach

Seesutas

Noymai

, & Israsena

(2013). Development of a low cost assistive listening system for hearing-impaired student classroom. The Scientific World Journal, 2013, 787656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/787656

68.

Purdy

S. C.

Smart

J. L.

Baily

, & Sharma

(2009). Do children with reading delay benefit from the use of personal FM systems in the classroom? International Journal of Audiology, 48, 843–852. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992020903140910

69.

Rance

Corben

, & Delatycki

(2012). Auditory processing deficits in children with Friedreich ataxia. Journal of Child Neurology, 27, 1197–1203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0883073812448963

70.

Rance

Corben

L. A.

Du Bourg

King

, & Delatycki

M. B.

(2010). Successful treatment of auditory perceptual disorder in individuals with Friedreich ataxia. Neuroscience, 171, 552–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.09.013

71.

Rance

Saunders

Carew

Johansson

, & Tan

(2014). The use of listening devices to ameliorate auditory deficit in children with autism. Journal of Pediatrics, 164, 352–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.09.041

72.

Ricketts

T. A.

, & Galster

(2008). Head angle and elevation in classroom environments: Implications for amplification. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 516–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/037)

73.

Schafer

E. C.

Beeler

Ramos

Morais

Monzingo

, & Algier

(2012). Developmental effects and spatial hearing in young children with normal-hearing sensitivity. Ear and Hearing, 33, e32–e43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e318258c616

74.

Schafer

E. C.

Huynh

Romine

, & Jimenez

(2013). Speech recognition and subjective perceptions of neck-loop FM receivers with cochlear implants. American Journal of Audiology, 22, 53–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2012/11-0032)

75.

Schafer

E. C.

Mathews

Mehta

Hill

Munoz

Bishop

, & Moloney

(2013). Personal FM systems for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and/or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): An initial investigation. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46, 30–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.09.002

76.

Schafer

E. C.

Musgrave

Momin

Sandrock

, & Romine

(2013). A proposed electroacoustic test protocol for personal FM receivers coupled to cochlear implant sound processors. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 24, 941–954. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.24.10.6

77.

Schafer

E. C.

Romine

Musgrave

Momin

, & Huynh

(2013). Electromagnetic versus electrical coupling of personal frequency modulation (FM) receivers to cochlear implant sound processors. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 24, 927–940. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.24.10.5

78.

Schafer

E. C.

, & Thibodeau

L. M.

(2006). Speech recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements. American Journal of Audiology, 15, 114–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2006/015)

79.

Schafer

E. C.

Thibodeau

L. M.

Whalen

H. S.

, & Overson

G. J.

(2007). Electroacoustic evaluation of frequency-modulated receivers interfaced with personal hearing aids. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 315–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2007/034)

80.

Schafer

E. C.

Wolfe

Lawless

, & Stout

(2009). Effects of FM-receiver gain on speech-recognition performance of adults with cochlear implants. International Journal of Audiology, 48, 196–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020802572635

81.

Seebens

, & Diller

(2012). Improvements in speech perception after the upgrade from the TEMPO+ to the OPUS 2 audio processor. Journal for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, 74, 6–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000333124

82.

Sela

(2014). Visual and auditory synchronization deficits among dyslexic readers as compared to non-impaired readers: A cross-correlation algorithm analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 364. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00364

83.

Sharma

Purdy

S. C.

, & Kelly

A. S.

(2012). A randomized control trial of interventions in school-aged children with auditory processing disorders. International Journal of Audiology, 51, 506–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2012.670272

84.

Shield

& Dockrell

(2008). The effects of classroom and environmental noise on the academic attainments of primary school children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 133–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2812596

85.

Sinha

Silove

Hayen

, & Williams

(2011). Auditory integration training and other sound therapies for autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2011, CD003681.

86.

Soares

A. J.

Sanches

S. G.

Alves

D. C.

Carvallo

R. M.

, & Cárnio

M. S.

(2013). Temporal auditory processing and phonological awareness in reading and writing disorders: Preliminary data. CoDAS, 25, 188–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2317-17822013000200016

87.

Southall

Gagné

J. P.

, & Leroux

(2006). Factors that influence the use of assistance technologies by older adults who have a hearing loss. International Journal of Audiology, 45, 252–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020500258586

88.

Souza

P. E.

, & Tremblay

K. L.

(2006). New perspectives on assessing amplification effects. Trends in Amplification, 10, 119–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1084713806292648

89.

Svirsky

M. A.

Fitzgerald

M. B.

Neuman

Sagi

Tan

C. T.

Ketten

, & Martin

(2012). Current and planned cochlear implant research at New York University Laboratory for Translational Auditory Research. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 23, 422–437.

90.

Thibodeau

(2010). Benefits of adaptive FM systems on speech recognition in noise for listeners who use hearing aids. American Journal of Audiology, 19, 36–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2010/09-0014)

91.

Tierney

C. D.

Kurtz

, & Souders

(2012). Clear as mud: Another look at autism, childhood apraxia of speech and auditory processing. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 24, 394–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0b013e328352c5a6

92.

Umat

Mukari

S. Z.

Ezan

N. F.

, & Din

N. C.

(2011). Changes in auditory memory performance following the use of frequency-modulated system in children with suspected auditory processing disorders. Saudi Medical Journal, 32, 818–824.

93.

Valente

Mispagel

Valente

L. M.

, & Hullar

(2006). Problems and solutions for fitting amplification to patients with Ménière’s disease. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 17, 6–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.17.1.2

94.

Vermiglio

A. J.

Soli

S. D.

Freed

D. J.

, & Fisher

L. M.

(2012). The relationship between high-frequency pure-tone hearing loss, Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) thresholds, and the articulation index. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 23, 779–788. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.23.10.4

95.

Vickers

D. A.

Backus

B. C.

Macdonald

N. K.

Rostamzadeh

N. K.

Mason

N. K.

Pandya

, . . . Mahon

M. H.

(2013). Using personal response systems to assess speech perception within the classroom: An approach to determine the efficacy of sound field amplification in primary school classrooms. Ear and Hearing, 34, 491–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31827ad76f

96.

Vongphoe

, & Zeng

F. G.

(2005). Speaker recognition with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1055–1061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1944507

97.

Wang

Spychala

Harris

R. S.

, & Oetting

T. L.

(2013). The effectiveness of a phonics-based early intervention for deaf and hard of hearing preschool children and its possible impact on reading skills in elementary school: A case study. American Annals of the Deaf, 158, 107–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aad.2013.0021

98.

Warrier

C. M.

Johnson

K. L.

Hayes

E. A.

Nicol

, & Kraus

(2004). Learning impaired children exhibit timing deficits and training-related improvements in auditory cortical responses to speech in noise. Experimental Brain Research, 157, 431–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-1857-6

99.

Wilson

W. J.

Marinac

Pitty

, & Burrows

(2011). The use of sound-field amplification devices in different types of classrooms. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 395–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2011/09-0080)

100.

Wolfe

Morais

Schafer

Mills

Mülder

H. E.

Goldbeck

, . . . Lianos

(2013). Evaluation of speech recognition of cochlear implant recipients using a personal digital adaptive radio frequency system. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 24, 714–724. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.24.8.8

101.

Wolfe

Schafer

E. C.

Heldner

Mülder

Ward

, & Vincent

(2009). Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 20, 409–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.20.7.3

102.

Yang

, & Bradley

J. S.

(2009). Effects of room acoustics on the intelligibility of speech in classrooms for young children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 922–933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3058900

103.

Zekveld

A. A.

Kramer

S. E.

Kessens

J. M.

Vlaming

M. S.

, & Houtgast

(2009). The influence of age, hearing, and working memory on the speech comprehension benefit derived from an automatic speech recognition system. Ear and Hearing, 30, 262–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181987063

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.54 MB