Summary
Compared word recognition through an induction loop, an FM system, an infrared system and a public-address system in a medium-size classroom.
Key findings
- PubMed dates the article to January 1986. Its Grants and funding section lists NIH grant R01 NS 12035, and its publication types include US government research support.
- Listener groups were people with normal hearing, people with hearing loss, hearing-aid users and older adults; words were tested with 12-voice babble at +8 dB and without babble at +20 dB.
- For every group, all three assistive systems gave better word scores than the public-address system.
- Differences between systems depended on the listener group and on the room signal-to-noise ratio; the authors conclude that all three systems suit listeners with various degrees of hearing loss.
- The PubMed record classifies the paper as US Public Health Service-supported research and lists NIH/NINDS grant R01 NS 12035 under Grants and funding; the abstract does not state the participant count.
Limits
Only the PubMed abstract and bibliographic and grant metadata were read; the full paper was not obtained, and the abstract gives no participant count or equipment models. One classroom comparison published in 1986; word tests rather than sentences.
Read the original
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3958997
Cited in
- What do listeners prefer, and how often do they use venue systems?Partly answered
- Where does infrared assistive listening work, and where does it fall short?Partly answered
- What works in university lecture halls and large teaching rooms?Partly answered
- How much do room acoustics and distance limit listening without a system, and what follows for choosing one?Partly answered
Cite this source
Nábělek AK, Donahue AM, Letowski TR. Comparison of amplification systems in a classroom. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 23(1):41-52. January 1986. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3958997/ (accessed 13 October 2026).
Every finding here cites its source, and who funded each source is labelled. This site does not recommend products. Found an error or a missing study? Suggest a correction.