Postlingual adult performance in noise with HiRes 120 and ClearVoice Low,Medium, and High

Abstract

Objectives

The study's objectives were to evaluate speech recognition in multiple listening conditions using several noise types with HiRes 120 and ClearVoice (Low, Medium, High) and to determine which ClearVoice program was most beneficial for everyday use.

Methods

Fifteen postlingual adults attended four sessions; speech recognition was assessed at sessions 1 and 3 with HiRes 120 and at sessions 2 and 4 with all ClearVoice programs. Test measures included sentences presented in restaurant noise (R-SPACE^TM), in speech-spectrum noise, in four- and eight-talker babble, and connected discourse presented in 12-talker babble. Participants completed a questionnaire comparing ClearVoice programs.

Results

Significant group differences in performance between HiRes 120 and ClearVoice were present only in the R-SPACE^TM; performance was better with ClearVoice High than HiRes 120. Among ClearVoice programs, no significant group differences were present for any measure. Individual results revealed most participants performed better in the R-SPACE^TM with ClearVoice than HiRes 120. For other measures, significant individual differences between HiRes 120 and ClearVoice were not prevalent. Individual results among ClearVoice programs differed and overall preferences varied. Questionnaire data indicated increased understanding with High and Medium in certain environments.

Discussion

R-SPACE^TM and questionnaire results indicated an advantage for ClearVoice High and Medium. Individual test and preference data showed mixed results between ClearVoice programs making global recommendations difficult; however, results suggest providing ClearVoice High and Medium and HiRes 120 as processor options for adults willing to change settings. For adults unwilling or unable to change settings, ClearVoice Medium is a practical choice for daily listening.