PURPOSE: In this study, the authors evaluated the effect of remote system and acoustic environment on speech perception via telehealth with cochlear implant recipients. METHOD: Speech perception was measured in quiet and in noise. Systems evaluated were Polycom visual concert (PVC) and a hybrid presentation system (HPS). Each system was evaluated in a sound-treated booth and in a quiet office. RESULTS: For speech in quiet, there was a significant effect of environment, with better performance in the sound-treated booth than in the office; there was no effect of system (PVC or HPS). Speech in noise revealed a significant interaction between environment and system. Subjects' performance was poorer for PVC in the office, whereas performance in the sound-treated booth was not significantly different for the two systems. Results from the current study were compared to results for the same group of subjects from an earlier study; these results suggested that poorer performance at remote sites in the previous study was primarily due to environment, not system. CONCLUSIONS: Speech perception was best when evaluated in a sound-treated booth. HPS was superior for speech in noise in a reverberant environment. Future research should focus on modifications to non-sound-treated environments for telehealth service delivery in rural areas.
PURPOSE: In this study, the authors evaluated the effect of remote system and acoustic environment on speech perception via telehealth with cochlear implant recipients. METHOD: Speech perception was measured in quiet and in noise. Systems evaluated were Polycom visual concert (PVC) and a hybrid presentation system (HPS). Each system was evaluated in a sound-treated booth and in a quiet office. RESULTS: For speech in quiet, there was a significant effect of environment, with better performance in the sound-treated booth than in the office; there was no effect of system (PVC or HPS). Speech in noise revealed a significant interaction between environment and system. Subjects' performance was poorer for PVC in the office, whereas performance in the sound-treated booth was not significantly different for the two systems. Results from the current study were compared to results for the same group of subjects from an earlier study; these results suggested that poorer performance at remote sites in the previous study was primarily due to environment, not system. CONCLUSIONS: Speech perception was best when evaluated in a sound-treated booth. HPS was superior for speech in noise in a reverberant environment. Future research should focus on modifications to non-sound-treated environments for telehealth service delivery in rural areas.
Authors: Jill B Firszt; Laura K Holden; Margaret W Skinner; Emily A Tobey; Ann Peterson; Wolfgang Gaggl; Christina L Runge-Samuelson; P Ashley Wackym Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Michelle L Hughes; Jenny L Goehring; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Gina R Diaz; Todd Sanford; Roger Harpster; Daniel L Valente Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2012-01-09 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Kyle T Fletcher; Frank W Dicken; Margaret M Adkins; Trey A Cline; Beth N McNulty; Jennifer B Shinn; Matthew L Bush Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Helen Cullington; Padraig Kitterick; Lisa DeBold; Mark Weal; Nicholas Clarke; Eva Newberry; Lisa Aubert Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 2.692