Hearing Assistance Technology for Children: Candidacy and Selection

ABSTRACT

Hearing assistance technology (HAT) significantly improves listening abilities of children with hearing loss and other auditory disorders in noisy environments, such as typical classrooms. Determining candidacy for HAT and selection of the most appropriate type of HAT for children may be a daunting task because of the wide variety of current device options. Therefore, the goal of this article is to summarize a simple four-step process for determining candidacy and selecting HAT for children, including a summary of the most current research. The four steps include: (1) determining candidacy for HAT with up-to-date research, (2) reviewing current device options, (3) considering child characteristics and listening environments, and (4) using research to support the HAT recommendation. Completion of these four steps will yield evidence-based recommendations stemming from a combination of the best available research, professional expertise, and child-specific characteristics.

KEYWORDS

Hearing assistance technology - children - candidacy - selection

REFERENCES

• 1 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association .Acoustics in Educational Settings: Position Statement: 2005. http://Available at: http//asha.org/docs/html/PS2005-0028.html Accessed June 30, 2010
• 2 American National Standards Institute .Acoustical performance criteria, design requirements, and guidelines for schools. N. Accredited Standards Committee S12. Melville, NY; American National Standards Institute 2002
• 3 Knecht H A, Nelson P B, Whitelaw G M, Feth L L. Background noise levels and reverberation times in unoccupied classrooms: predictions and measurements.  Am J Audiol. 2002;  11 65-71
• 4 Special Education Law Library .Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004. Available at: http//idea.ed.gov Accessed June 30, 2010 (IDEA 2004)
• 5 American Academy of Audiology - Clinical Practice Guidelines: Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technologies for Children and Youth Birth–21 Years. American Academy of Audiology 2008
• 6 Davis J M, Elfenbein J, Schum R, Bentler R A. Effects of mild and moderate hearing impairments on language, educational, and psychosocial behavior of children.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1986;  51 53-62
• 7 Eisenberg L S, Kirk K I, Martinez A S, Ying E A, Miyamoto R T. Communication abilities of children with aided residual hearing: comparison with cochlear implant users.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;  130 563-569
• 8 Schafer E C, Thibodeau L M. Speech recognition performance of children using cochlear implants and FM systems.  J Educ Audiol. 2003;  11 15-26
• 9 Kenworthy O T, Klee T, Tharpe A M. Speech recognition ability of children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss as a function of amplification, speech stimuli and listening condition.  Ear Hear. 1990;  11 264-270
• 10 Crandell C. Speech recognition in noise of children with minimal degrees of senorineural hearing loss.  Ear Hear. 1993;  14 210-216
• 11 Gravel J S, Wallace I F. Listening and language at 4 years of age: effects of early otitis media.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1992;  35 588-595
• 12 Cameron S, Dillon H. The listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S): comparison to the prototype LISN and results from children with either a suspected (central) auditory processing disorder or a confirmed language disorder.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2008;  19 377-391
• 13 Bradlow A R, Kraus N, Hayes E. Speaking clearly for children with learning disabilities: sentence perception in noise.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;  46 80-97
• 14 Rance G, Barker E, Mok M, Dowell R, Rincon A, Garratt R. Speech perception in noise for children with auditory neuropathy/dys-synchrony type hearing loss.  Ear Hear. 2007;  28 351-360
• 15 Ziegler J C, Pech-Georgel C, George F, Alario F-X, Lorenzi C. Deficits in speech perception predict language learning impairment.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;  102 14110-14115
• 16 Geffner D, Lucker J R, Koch W. Evaluation of auditory discrimination in children with ADD and without ADD.  Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 1996;  26 169-179
• 17 Crandell C, Smaldino J. Speech perception in noise by children for whom English is a second language.  Am J Audiol. 1996;  5 47-51
• 18 Bess F H, Dodd-Murphy J, Parker R A. Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: prevalence, educational performance, and functional status.  Ear Hear. 1998;  19 339-354
• 19 Gravel J S, Fausel N, Liskow C, Chobot J. Children's speech recognition in noise using omni-directional and dual-microphone hearing aid technology.  Ear Hear. 1999;  20 1-11
• 20 Elliott L L, Connors S, Kille E, Levin S, Ball K, Katz D. Children's understanding of monosyllabic nouns in quiet and in noise.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1979;  66 12-21
• 21 Thibodeau L M. Terminology and Standardization. In: Fabry D, Deconde Johnson C Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions (ACCESS). Chicago, IL; Phonak 2003: 75-87
• 22 Kenworthy O T, Klee T, Tharpe A M. Speech recognition ability of children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss as a function of amplification, speech stimuli and listening condition.  Ear Hear. 1990;  11 264-270
• 23 Flynn T S, Flynn M C, Gregory M. The FM advantage in the real classroom.  J Educ Audiol. 2005;  12 35-42
• 24 Boothroyd A, Iglehart F. Experiments with classroom FM amplification.  Ear Hear. 1998;  19 207-217
• 25 Anderson K L, Goldstein H. Speech perception benefits of FM and infrared devices to children with hearing aids in a typical classroom.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2004;  35 169-184
• 26 Anderson K L, Goldstein H, Colodzin L, Iglehart F. Benefit of S/N enhancing devices to speech perception of children listening in a typical classroom with hearing aids or a cochlear implant.  J Educ Audiol. 2005;  12 14-28
• 27 Schafer E C, Thibodeau L M. Speech recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements.  Am J Audiol. 2006;  15 114-126
• 28 Schafer E C, Kleineck M P. Improvements in speech recognition using cochlear implants and three types of FM systems: a meta-analytic approach.  J Educ Audiol. 2009;  15 4-14
• 29 Johnston K N, John A B, Kreisman N V, Hall III J W, Crandell C C. Multiple benefits of personal FM system use by children with auditory processing disorder (APD).  Int J Audiol. 2009;  48 371-383
• 30 Friederichs E, Friederichs P. Electrophysiologic and psycho-acoustic findings following one-year application of a personal ear-level FM device in children with attention deficit and suspected central auditory processing disorder.  J Educ Audiol. 2005;  12 29-34
• 31 Updike C D. The use of FM systems for children with attention deficit disorder.  J Educ Audiol. 2006;  13 7-14
• 32 Flexer C, Millin J P, Brown L. Children with developmental disabilities: the effect of sound field amplification on word identification.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1990;  21 177-182
• 33 Flexer C, Savage H. Use of a mild gain amplifier with preschoolers with language delay.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1993;  24 151-155
• 34 Blake R, Field B, Foster C, Platt F, Wertz P. Effect of FM auditory trainers on attending behaviors of learning-disabled children.  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1991;  22 111-114
• 35 Arnold P, Canning D. Does classroom amplification aid comprehension?.  Br J Audiol. 1999;  33 171-178
• 36 Sanders D A. Noise conditions in normal school classrooms.  Except Child. 1965;  31 344-353