Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.55 1373-1386 October 2012. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0358)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goehring, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Harpster, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goehring, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Harpster, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

The Effect of Technology and Testing Environment on Speech Perception Using Telehealth With Cochlear Implant Recipients

Jenny L. Goehringa
Michelle L. Hughesa
Jacquelyn L. Baudhuina
Daniel L. Valentea
Ryan W. McCreerya
Gina R. Diaza
Todd Sanforda
Roger Harpstera
a Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE

Correspondence to Jenny L. Goehring: jenny.goehring{at}boystown.org

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.

KEY WORDS: cochlear implants, telehealth, telepractice, speech perception, Polycom


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?