## 4 Discussion  
The aim of the study was to compare the transcription accuracy in noise when using AP as part of an RM system (iPhone set to LL) and when using a sophisticated RM system (Phonak Roger). Three factors were involved, including technology conditions, noise type, and SNR. The results indicated that the transcription accuracy was significantly influenced by all three factors and a two-way interaction of SNR by technology. Overall, accuracy scores were the lowest at \(-5\) compared to 0 and \(+5\) dB SNR, and the highest when using an RM such as Roger On transmitting to a Roger receiver or using a smartphone with LL transmitting via Bluetooth low energy to an AP set to NC mode. Regarding the baseline conditions (Table 4), it is interesting to note that using the AP alone did not increase the accuracy score. Because of the somewhat artificial nature of the VTT arrangement with a manikin, the baseline results are provided for information purposes. As mentioned earlier, the results may be impacted by the fitting of the AP on an artificial pinna. It should also be noted that in this test arrangement using KEMAR, the result is obtained monaurally, so that the benefits of binaural listening that are available with human listeners were not observed. However, when using an RM system (Table 5), there were improvements in the transcription accuracy relative to using KEMAR alone. [PERSON] et al. [24] reported that using the AP on TH adults with self-disclosed difficulties hearing in noise, set for \"maximum ambient noise reduction\" and \"conversation boost\" enabled, provided a 5.4 dB SNR advantage and 11.8% intelligibility increase. It is likely that if they had included the use of the smartphone as an RM system, the improvements would have been greater. In addition, there was an 8% reduction in mental demand and listening effort. In the present study, the most accurate VTT score with the AP was obtained when using LL and with the AP also set to NC mode (92.5%). This agrees with [PERSON] [26], who reported 94.4% accurate sentence recognition on average when testing adults with typical hearing wearing the AP with an iPhone set to LL. The NC mode deactivates the microphones on the AP and allows for signals with the highest quality as the input to the Otter transcription program. Further research is required to confirm such benefits in humans with different degrees of hearing impairment. When considering the interaction between the SNR and technology, the most demanding listening conditions (0 and \(-5\) dB SNR) revealed significant differences in accuracy among the three RM conditions. The accuracy was significantly lower when using AP TP + LL compared to Roger and AP NC + LL, although there was no significant difference between Roger and AP NC + LL. This suggests that RM features offer potential benefits relative to AP TP + LL mode, which allows the transmission of environmental noise. In the AP TP mode, the environmental noise is mixed with the signal arriving from the RM, thus reducing its potential benefit. Differences between smartphone-based RM and Roger systems may stem from Bluetooth transmission delays (averaging 144 ms in AP [16]), which are not present in Roger's digital modulation transmission. These delays substantially exceed the reported tolerable thresholds of 10-30 ms for hearing devices [17]. The asynchrony \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**SNR (dB)** & **+5** & **0** & \(-\)**5** \\ \hline Roger RM system vs. AP NC+LL & 0.13 & 1.34 & 1.46 \\ Roger RM system vs. AP TP+LL & 1.72 & 5.92 *** & 8.21 *** \\ AP NC+LL vs. AP TP+LL & 1.59 & 4.58 ** & 6.75 *** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} NOTE: \(t\) value was indicated. Strength of Tukey’s adjusted \(p\)-values: **\(p_{adj}<0.01\), ***\(p_{adj}<0.001\). Same abbreviations as Table 5.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Post hoc analysis of pair-wise comparisons of remote microphone conditions under different signal-to-noise ratios.