ArticleAmerican journal of audiology2020
Speech Perception in Classroom Acoustics by Children With Hearing Loss and Wearing Hearing Aids.
Article in American journal of audiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Time Delay and Frequency Analysis of Remote Microphones.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Remote-Microphone Benefit in Noise and Reverberation for Children Who are Hard of Hearing.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2022Article
- Phoneme Perception in Children With Bilateral Cochlear Implants or Hearing Aids in Quiet, Noise, and Reverberation.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose The classroom acoustic standard ANSI/ASA S12.60-2010/Part 1 requires a reverberation time (RT) for children with hearing impairment of 0.3 s, shorter than its requirement of 0.6 s for children with typical hearing. While preliminary data from conference proceedings support this new RT requirement of 0.3 s, peer-reviewed data that support 0.3-s RT are not available on those wearing hearing aids. To help address this, this article compares speech perception performance by children with hearing aids in RTs, including those specified in the ANSI/ASA-2010 standard. A related clinical issue is whether assessments of speech perception conducted in near-anechoic sound booths, which may overestimate performance in reverberant classrooms, may now provide a more reliable estimate when the child is in a classroom with a short RT of 0.3 s. To address this, this study compared speech perception by children with hearing aids in a sound booth to listening in 0.3-s RT. Method Participants listened in classroom RTs of 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 s and in a near-anechoic sound booth. All conditions also included a 21-dB range of speech-to-noise ratios (SNRs) to further represent classroom listening environments. Performance measures using the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise (BKB-SIN) test were 50% correct word recognition across these acoustic conditions, with supplementary analyses of percent correct. Results Each reduction in RT from 0.9 to 0.6 to 0.3 s significantly benefited the children's perception of speech. Scores obtained in a sound booth were significantly better than those measured in 0.3-s RT. Conclusion These results support the acoustic standard of 0.3-s RT for children with hearing impairment in learning spaces ≤ 283 m
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.