The effect of technology and testing environment on speech perception using telehealth with cochlear implant recipients

Jenny L. Goehring, Michelle L. Hughes, Jacquelyn L. Baudhuin, Daniel L. Valente, Ryan W McCreery, Gina R. Diaz, Todd Sanford, Roger Harpster

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1373-1386
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume55
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2012

Fingerprint

effects of technology
Speech Perception
Cochlear Implants
Telemedicine
recipient
Technology
Noise
concert
performance
Acoustics
Testing
Recipient
Cochlear Implant
acoustics
rural area

Keywords

  • Cochlear implants
  • Polycom
  • Speech perception
  • Telehealth
  • Telepractice

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

The effect of technology and testing environment on speech perception using telehealth with cochlear implant recipients. / Goehring, Jenny L.; Hughes, Michelle L.; Baudhuin, Jacquelyn L.; Valente, Daniel L.; McCreery, Ryan W; Diaz, Gina R.; Sanford, Todd; Harpster, Roger.

In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol. 55, No. 5, 01.10.2012, p. 1373-1386.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Goehring, Jenny L. ; Hughes, Michelle L. ; Baudhuin, Jacquelyn L. ; Valente, Daniel L. ; McCreery, Ryan W ; Diaz, Gina R. ; Sanford, Todd ; Harpster, Roger. / The effect of technology and testing environment on speech perception using telehealth with cochlear implant recipients. In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2012 ; Vol. 55, No. 5. pp. 1373-1386.
@article{3a4b8c653e144ca0912e4ef981910b33,
title = "The effect of technology and testing environment on speech perception using telehealth with cochlear implant recipients",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Cochlear implants, Polycom, Speech perception, Telehealth, Telepractice",
author = "Goehring, {Jenny L.} and Hughes, {Michelle L.} and Baudhuin, {Jacquelyn L.} and Valente, {Daniel L.} and McCreery, {Ryan W} and Diaz, {Gina R.} and Todd Sanford and Roger Harpster",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0358)",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "55",
pages = "1373--1386",
journal = "Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research",
issn = "1092-4388",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of technology and testing environment on speech perception using telehealth with cochlear implant recipients

AU - Goehring, Jenny L.

AU - Hughes, Michelle L.

AU - Baudhuin, Jacquelyn L.

AU - Valente, Daniel L.

AU - McCreery, Ryan W

AU - Diaz, Gina R.

AU - Sanford, Todd

AU - Harpster, Roger

PY - 2012/10/1

Y1 - 2012/10/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Cochlear implants

KW - Polycom

KW - Speech perception

KW - Telehealth

KW - Telepractice

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867038315&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867038315&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0358)

DO - 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0358)

M3 - Article

C2 - 22411283

AN - SCOPUS:84867038315

VL - 55

SP - 1373

EP - 1386

JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

SN - 1092-4388

IS - 5

ER -