PURPOSE: This study measured speech perception ability in children with cochlear implants and children with typical hearing when listening across ranges of reverberation times (RTs) and speech-to-noise ratios. METHOD: Participants listened in classroom RTs of 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 s combined with a 21-dB range of speech-to-noise ratios. Subsets also listened in a low-reverberant audiological sound booth. Performance measures using the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test (Etymotic Research, Inc., 2005) were 50% correct word recognition across these acoustic conditions, with supplementary analyses of percent correct. RESULTS: Reduction in RT from 0.9 to 0.6 s benefited both groups of children. A further reduction in RT to 0.3 s provided additional benefit to the children with cochlear implants, with no further benefit or harm to those with typical hearing. Scores in the sound booth were significantly higher for the participants with implants than in the classroom. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the acoustic standards of 0.6 s RT for children with typical hearing and 0.3 s RT for children with auditory issues in learning spaces (≤283 m3) as specified in standards S12.60-2010/Part 1 of the American National Standards Institute /Acoustical Society of America (2010). In addition, speech perception testing in a low-reverberant booth overestimated classroom listening ability in children with cochlear implants.
PURPOSE: This study measured speech perception ability in children with cochlear implants and children with typical hearing when listening across ranges of reverberation times (RTs) and speech-to-noise ratios. METHOD:Participants listened in classroom RTs of 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 s combined with a 21-dB range of speech-to-noise ratios. Subsets also listened in a low-reverberant audiological sound booth. Performance measures using the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test (Etymotic Research, Inc., 2005) were 50% correct word recognition across these acoustic conditions, with supplementary analyses of percent correct. RESULTS: Reduction in RT from 0.9 to 0.6 s benefited both groups of children. A further reduction in RT to 0.3 s provided additional benefit to the children with cochlear implants, with no further benefit or harm to those with typical hearing. Scores in the sound booth were significantly higher for the participants with implants than in the classroom. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the acoustic standards of 0.6 s RT for children with typical hearing and 0.3 s RT for children with auditory issues in learning spaces (≤283 m3) as specified in standards S12.60-2010/Part 1 of the American National Standards Institute /Acoustical Society of America (2010). In addition, speech perception testing in a low-reverberant booth overestimated classroom listening ability in children with cochlear implants.