Article  |   October 2012
The Effect of Technology and Testing Environment on Speech Perception Using Telehealth With Cochlear Implant Recipients
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jenny L. Goehring
    Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
  • Michelle L. Hughes
    Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
  • Jacquelyn L. Baudhuin
    Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
  • Daniel L. Valente
    Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
  • Ryan W. McCreery
    Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
  • Gina R. Diaz
    Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
  • Todd Sanford
    Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
  • Roger Harpster
    Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, NE
  • Correspondence to Jenny L. Goehring: jenny.goehring@boystown.org
  • Editor: Sid Bacon
    Editor: Sid Bacon×
  • Associate Editor: Paul Abbas
    Associate Editor: Paul Abbas×
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Hearing & Speech Perception / Acoustics / Hearing Disorders / Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Telepractice & Computer-Based Approaches / Hearing
Article   |   October 2012
The Effect of Technology and Testing Environment on Speech Perception Using Telehealth With Cochlear Implant Recipients
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research October 2012, Vol.55, 1373-1386. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0358)
History: Accepted 22 Feb 2012 , Received 29 Dec 2011
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research October 2012, Vol.55, 1373-1386. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0358)
History: Accepted 22 Feb 2012 , Received 29 Dec 2011

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.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access

Related Articles

Speech Perception in Individuals With Auditory Neuropathy
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2006, Vol.49, 367-380. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/029)
Acoustic and Semantic Enhancements for Children With Cochlear Implants
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research August 2013, Vol.56, 1085-1096. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0097)
Effect of Rate-Alteration on Speech Perception in Noise in Older Adults With Normal Hearing and Hearing Impairment
American Journal of Audiology June 2012, Vol.21, 22-32. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2011/10-0023)
Use of Telehealth for Research and Clinical Measures in Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Validation Study
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research August 2012, Vol.55, 1112-1127. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0237)
People: February 2013
The ASHA Leader February 2013, Vol.18, 12-15. doi:10.1044/leader.PPL.18022013.12