Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

FM systems improve language and articulation more than hearing aids in children with mild hearing loss

FM systems improve language and articulation more than hearing aids in children with mild hearing lo…
Photo by Navy Medicine / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider FM systems for language and articulation improvement in children with mild hearing loss, but recognize evidence limitations.

This 12-month randomized controlled trial compared frequency modulation (FM) systems, hearing aids (HA), and a nontreatment control group in 43 Cantonese-speaking children aged 6-7 years with mild bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (pure-tone average 26-40 dB HL). Children were randomized to FM (n=16) or HA (n=16) groups, while the control group (n=11) consisted of children who declined intervention.

The FM group demonstrated significant improvements in language abilities, outperforming both the HA and control groups (Cohen's d=0.53, p<.01). The FM group also showed significant gains in articulation (consonant production, p<.01). However, no significant improvements in speech perception were observed across any of the groups.

Safety and tolerability data were not reported. A key limitation is that the control group was formed from children who declined intervention rather than being randomized, making this comparison observational. The study was conducted in a specific population of Cantonese-speaking children aged 6-7 years, limiting generalizability. While FM systems showed advantages for language and articulation outcomes in this single RCT, these findings require replication in broader populations with randomized control groups.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up12.0 mo
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of hearing aid (HA) and frequency modulation (FM) systems in improving language, articulation, and speech perception outcomes among children with mild bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (MBHL) over a 12-month intervention period. METHOD: A prospective repeated-measures design was employed, enrolling 43 Cantonese-speaking children aged 6-7 years, with a pure-tone average of 26-40 dB HL. Participants were randomly assigned to either the HA group ( = 16) or the FM group ( = 16). A nontreatment control group ( = 11) was formed from children who declined the intervention. The outcome measures included the Hong Kong Cantonese Articulation Test, the Hong Kong Cantonese Oral Language Assessment Scale, and the Cantonese Hearing-in-Noise Test. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 12 months post-intervention. RESULTS: The FM group demonstrated significant improvements in language abilities ( < .01, Cohen's = 0.53), particularly in word definition, expressive vocabulary, and Cantonese grammar, outperforming both the HA and control groups ( < .05). Articulation improvements were greater in the FM group, with significant gains in consonant production ( < .01). No significant improvements were observed in speech perception across the groups. CONCLUSIONS: FM systems are more effective than HAs in enhancing language and articulation outcomes in children with MBHL, particularly in noisy classroom environments. These findings highlight the importance of individualized intervention strategies and the potential of FM systems to support auditory access and language development. Future research should explore long-term outcomes and the role of contextual factors in intervention efficacy.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.