Students and teachers report improved classroom listening during RMT use, with reduced teacher-rated inattention and hyperactivity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i1–i3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Student- and teacher-rated classroom listening on the LIFE-R improved during device use (P < .001 and P = .010). → Shiels 2026 q3 i1 Teachers reported reduced inattention (P = .037) and hyperactivity (P = .032); parents reported reduced hyperactivity (P = .007) but no change in inattention (P = .107). → 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 · i3 · causal · r2

Phase one RCT questionnaire analysis (n=35) using mixed effects models with device condition and timepoint as fixed variables. Table 2 reports student-rated LIFE-R Cohen's d of 1.02 and teacher-rated d of 0.58; the article reports "Both students (P < .001) and teachers (P = .010) reported improved student listening on the LIFE-R during device use".

"Both students (P < .001) and teachers (P = .010) reported improved student listening on the LIFE-R during device use."

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 · i1 · causal · r2

Same phase one questionnaire analysis. Table 2 reports parent-rated hyperactivity Cohen's d of -0.34 (p = 0.007), teacher-rated inattention d = -0.34 (p = 0.037), and teacher-rated hyperactivity d = -0.24 (p = 0.032). The article notes "Parents reported reduced hyperactivity (P = .007) but no change in inattention (P = .107)".

"Teachers also noted reduced inattention (P = .037) and hyperactivity (P = .032) on the Conners-3."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Auditory Processing — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• RMT improves auditory attention, sustained auditory attention and auditory response control, with no significant improvement on visual attention measures — related
• Children using RMT long-term report greater improvement in quality of life, with no group differences on parent- or teacher-rated outcomes — related
• RMT use improves speech recognition in noise for inattentive children with listening difficulties during a 4-week crossover RCT — related
• RMT use improves listening comprehension of oral directions in noise for inattentive children with listening difficulties — related
• NAT significantly reduced homeroom teacher-rated inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity relative to control — related