RMT improves auditory attention, sustained auditory attention and auditory response control, with no significant improvement on visual attention measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-26 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Auditory attention (P = .003), sustained auditory attention (P = .003) and auditory response control (P = .001) improved with RMT. → Shiels 2026 q3 i? No significant improvements were observed in visual attention or visual response control measures. → Shiels 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Shiels 2026¶

Shiels, L., Tomlin, D., Payne, J.M. et al. (2026). Benefits of classroom remote microphone technology for inattentive children. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00427-5

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Phase one crossover RCT (n=35) using the IVA-QS continuous performance task. Table 1 reports auditory attention Cohen's d of 0.54 (p = 0.003), sustained auditory attention d = 0.62 (p = 0.003), and auditory response control d = 0.60 (p = 0.001); the article reports "improvements were seen with RMT for auditory attention (P = .003), sustained auditory attention (P = .003), and auditory response control (P = .001)".

"In the attention task, improvements were seen with RMT for auditory attention (P = .003), sustained auditory attention (P = .003), and auditory response control (P = .001)."

Shiels 2026 (2)¶

Shiels, L., Tomlin, D., Payne, J.M. et al. (2026). Benefits of classroom remote microphone technology for inattentive children. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00427-5

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Same phase one RCT crossover analysis; the IVA-QS visual subscales showed no significant device effects (e.g., visual attention d = 0.22, p = 0.355), consistent with a benefit specific to auditory stimuli, though a non-significant result does not show the absence of a visual effect.

"No significant improvements were observed in any of the visual attention or response control measures."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Attention — outcome: instruction changes it
• Auditory Processing — outcome: instruction changes it
• Visual Processing — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Long-term RMT use does not improve auditory processing, memory or attention skills beyond the typical developmental trajectory — reports the opposite
• RMT use improves listening comprehension of oral directions in noise for inattentive children with listening difficulties — related
• RMT use improves speech recognition in noise for inattentive children with listening difficulties during a 4-week crossover RCT — related
• Long-term RMT use accelerates reading fluency gains in inattentive children compared to controls over a 30-week extension — related
• Students and teachers report improved classroom listening during RMT use, with reduced teacher-rated inattention and hyperactivity — related