Download PDF
Semin Hear 2014; 35(03): 239-245
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1383508
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Incorporating Wireless Frequency-Modulated Technology into Your Practice

Samuel R. Atcherson
1   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock/University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 July 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Frequency-modulated (FM) technology has high potential to increase patient communicative quality of life and independence in complex listening situations. However, FM technology is often difficult to integrate into and/or justify for audiology practice, and teenage and adult patients may fail to realize the potential of FM technology to augment their hearing. This is especially true for hearing aid or implant device users who must add additional equipment and may feel that their current ear-level technology is the end solution for their listening needs. This article presents possible solutions for increasing FM technology adoption using a practice-management and patient-focused approach.

Keywords

Adoption - FM - quality of life - practice management - speech understanding in noise
 

  • References

  • 1 Crandell C, Smaldino J, Flexer C. Sound Field FM Amplification: Theory and Practical Applications. San Diego, CA: Singular Press; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Lewis D. Assistive devices for classroom listening. Am J Audiol 1994; 3: 58-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ross M. Auditory Training Systems: Characteristics, Selection and Use. Timonium, MD: Park Press; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Boothroyd A. Hearing aid accessories for adults: the remote FM microphone. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (1) 22-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 English K. FM counseling issues: adolescents and young adults, or “The case of Jason B”. Paper presented at: The Phonak 2003 Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions (ACCESS) Conference; 19–184; Chicago, IL. November 10–13, 2003
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Chisolm TH, Noe CM, McArdle R , et al. FM technology use in adults with significant hearing loss. Part II: outcomes. In: Fabry D, Johnson CD, , eds. ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions. Proceeding for the First International FM Conference. Great Britain: Cambrian Printers Ltd.; 2004: 141-146
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Kordas T. Meeting the listening needs of adolescents: FM and other technologies. Perspectives Hear Hear Dis Childhood 2008; 18: 30-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ross M. The third ear: personal FM systems and adults. Hear Loss 2010; 31: 16-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Franks JL Why Do Students with Hearing Impairment Resist Wearing FM Amplification? [master's thesis and doctoral dissertation]. 2008. East Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI
  • 10 Jerger J, Chmiel R, Florin E, Pirozzolo F, Wilson N. Comparison of conventional amplification and an assistive listening device in elderly persons. Ear Hear 1996; 17 (6) 490-504
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 American Academy of Audiology. Remote microphone hearing assistance technologies for children and youth from birth to 21 years [clinical practice guidelines]. 2008. Available at: http://www.audiology.org/resources/documentlibrary/documents/hatguideline.pdf . Accessed June 15, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Guidelines for fitting and monitoring FM system [guidelines]. 2002. Available at: http://www.asha.org/policy/GL2002-00010/ . Accessed on June 15, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sanford MJ, Kierkhaefer B. Adults' use of FM systems: subjective benefit by adult users. Available at: http://www.betterhearingberkeley.com/news_adults-use-of-fm-systems.php . Accessed November 14, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Compton C. Assistive technology for enhancement of receptive communication. In: Alpiner J, McCarthy P, , eds. Rehabilitation Audiology, 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Cox RM, Xu J. Development of the Device Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) scale. J Am Acad Audiol , In press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Morris R. On the Job with Hearing Loss. New York, NY: Morgan James Publishing; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116 (4 Pt 1) 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nabelek AK, Freyaldenhoven MC, Tampas JW, Burchfiel SB, Muenchen RA. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (9) 626-639
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34 (3) 679-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bombicino J. Hearing aide—FM simulation. 2011. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l37lzLIgQU . Accessed June 15, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fitzpatrick EM, Fournier P, Séguin C, Armstrong S, Chénier J, Schramm D. Users' perspectives on the benefits of FM systems with cochlear implants. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (1) 44-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hearing Loss Association of America. HAT training. Available at: http://www.hearingloss.org/content/hat-training . Accessed June 15, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar