scholarly journals Impact of Advanced Hearing Aid Technology on Speech Understanding for Older Listeners with Mild to Moderate, Adult-Onset, Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Gerontology ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 557-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn M. Cox ◽  
Jani A. Johnson ◽  
Jingjing Xu
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Adult Onset ◽  
Speech Understanding

scholarly journals The Vibrant Soundbridge

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-149
Author(s):  
Ashutosh G Pusalkar
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Vibrant Soundbridge ◽  
Hearing Improvement ◽  
Electronic Engineer

Abstract Till about 15 years ago, the only choice of hearing improvement for moderate sensorineural hearing loss with severe speech discrimination defect was a hearing aid. It was only after Mr. Geoff Ball, an electronic engineer who was suffering from a similar defect, started thinking of an alternative to the conventional hearing aid that the Vibrant Soundbridge came into existence, and with the passage of time the indications for the use of the same have increased.

scholarly journals Investigating the Impact of Hearing Aid Use and Auditory Training on Cognition, Depressive Symptoms, and Social Interaction in Adults With Hearing Loss: Protocol for a Crossover Trial (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Nkyekyer ◽  
Denny Meyer ◽  
Peter J Blamey ◽  
Andrew Pipingas ◽  
Sunil Bhar
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Social Interaction ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Auditory Training ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

BACKGROUND Sensorineural hearing loss is the most common sensory deficit among older adults. Some of the psychosocial consequences of this condition include difficulty in understanding speech, depression, and social isolation. Studies have shown that older adults with hearing loss show some age-related cognitive decline. Hearing aids have been proven as successful interventions to alleviate sensorineural hearing loss. In addition to hearing aid use, the positive effects of auditory training—formal listening activities designed to optimize speech perception—are now being documented among adults with hearing loss who use hearing aids, especially new hearing aid users. Auditory training has also been shown to produce prolonged cognitive performance improvements. However, there is still little evidence to support the benefits of simultaneous hearing aid use and individualized face-to-face auditory training on cognitive performance in adults with hearing loss. OBJECTIVE This study will investigate whether using hearing aids for the first time will improve the impact of individualized face-to-face auditory training on cognition, depression, and social interaction for adults with sensorineural hearing loss. The rationale for this study is based on the hypothesis that, in adults with sensorineural hearing loss, using hearing aids for the first time in combination with individualized face-to-face auditory training will be more effective for improving cognition, depressive symptoms, and social interaction rather than auditory training on its own. METHODS This is a crossover trial targeting 40 men and women between 50 and 90 years of age with either mild or moderate symmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Consented, willing participants will be recruited from either an independent living accommodation or via a community database to undergo a 6-month intensive face-to-face auditory training program (active control). Participants will be assigned in random order to receive hearing aid (intervention) for either the first 3 or last 3 months of the 6-month auditory training program. Each participant will be tested at baseline, 3, and 6 months using a neuropsychological battery of computer-based cognitive assessments, together with a depression symptom instrument and a social interaction measure. The primary outcome will be cognitive performance with regard to spatial working memory. Secondary outcome measures include other cognition performance measures, depressive symptoms, social interaction, and hearing satisfaction. RESULTS Data analysis is currently under way and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in June 2018. CONCLUSIONS Results from the study will inform strategies for aural rehabilitation, hearing aid delivery, and future hearing loss intervention trials. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03112850; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03112850 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xz12fD0B).

Outcomes of Hearing Aid Use by Individuals with Unilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss (USNHL)

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 941-949 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles E. Bishop ◽  
Elgenaid Hamadain ◽  
Jason A. Galster ◽  
Mary Frances Johnson ◽  
Christopher Spankovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

Background: Unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL) can have a negative impact on functions associated with the advantages of balanced, binaural hearing. Although single-sided deafness, which is a complete loss of audibility in one ear, has gained increased interest in the published research, there is a gap in the literature concerning hearing aid outcomes for individuals with residual, or otherwise “aidable,” hearing in the affected ear. Purpose: To assess hearing aid outcomes for a group of individuals with USNHL with residual, aidable function. Research Design: A quasi-experimental study of hearing aid outcomes with paired comparisons made between unaided and aided test conditions. Study Sample: A convenience sample of twenty-two individuals with USNHL, with sufficient residual hearing in the affected ear as to receive audibility from use of a hearing aid, were recruited into the study from September 2011 to August 2012. Intervention: Each participant was fit with a digital behind-the-ear hearing aid coupled to a custom ear mold. Data Collection and Analysis: Assessments were performed at baseline (unaided) and after a three-month field trial (aided) with primary outcomes involving objective measures in sound field yielding signal-to-noise ratio loss (SNR Loss) via the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test and word recognition scores (WRS) via the Northwestern University Auditory Test, No. 6. Outcomes also involved the administration of two well-established subjective benefit questionnaires: The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the 49-item Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ49). Results: As a group, participants showed significantly improved median SNR Loss thresholds when aided in a test condition that included spatial separation of speech and noise, with speech stimuli directed toward the worse ear and noise stimuli directed toward the better ear (diff. = −4.5; p < 0.001). Hearing aid use had a small, though statistically significant, negative impact on median SNR Loss thresholds, when speech and noise stimuli originated from the same 0° azimuth (diff. = 1.0; p = 0.018). This was also evidenced by the median WRS in sound field (diff. = −6.0; p = 0.006), which was lowered from 98% in the unaided state to 92% in the aided state. Results from the SSQ49 showed statistically significant improvement on all subsection means when participants were aided (p < 0.05), whereas results from the APHAB were generally found to be unremarkable between unaided and aided conditions as benefit was essentially equal to the 50th percentile of the normative data. At the close of the study, it was observed that only slightly more than half of all participants chose to continue use of a hearing aid after their participation. Conclusions: We observed that hearing aid use by individuals with USNHL can improve the SNR Loss associated with the interference of background noise, especially in situations when there is spatial separation of the stimuli and speech is directed toward the affected ear. In addition, hearing aid use by these individuals can provide subjective benefit, as evidenced by the APHAB and SSQ49 subjective benefit questionnaires.

Evaluation of Hardwire Personal Assistive Listening Devices

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Dempsey ◽  
Mark Ross
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Frequency Responses ◽  
Subjective Evaluations ◽  
Potential Benefits

A large number of personal amplifiers have recently become available commercially. These devices have not been classified as hearing aids by the FDA and are therefore not subject to the FDA rules and regulations governing the sales of hearing aid devices. In this investigation, several of these personal amplifiers were evaluated to determine potential benefits and problems for each device. The devices were evaluated electroacoustically and, also, subjectively by a group of adults with sensorineural hearing loss. The results of the electroacoustic evaluation revealed very sharply peaked frequency responses. The subjective evaluations revealed tremendous variability, with some preferences for power and low-frequency amplification. Clinical implications of these results and suggestions for further research are provided.

Effect of Release Time on Preferred Gain and Speech Acoustics

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (09) ◽  
pp. 605-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas F. Muller ◽  
Frances P. Harris ◽  
John C. Ellison
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Speech Stimulus ◽  
Release Time ◽  
Ear Canal ◽  
Continuous Speech ◽  
Adaptive Procedure ◽  
Speech Acoustics

Eighteen experienced hearing aid users with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss were fit with a digital hearing instrument. An adaptive procedure was used to determine their preferred gain setting for continuous speech under six conditions. Release time (RT) was set to 40, 160, or 640 msec. A prerecorded speech stimulus was presented in quiet or in the presence of multitalker babble (10 dB signal-to-babble ratio); all other compression variables were fixed. Real-ear data obtained with settings for each condition suggest that RT did not affect gain preference; however, subjects preferred higher gain in the presence of the multitalker babble. The RMS amplitudes of 30 phonemic units were calculated using ear canal recordings of the speech stimulus for each subject in each condition. Altering RT resulted primarily in decreased amplitude with increased RT, but this effect was not predictable across listeners or conditions.

Atresia and Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (04) ◽  
pp. 241-248
Author(s):  
Steven P. Smith ◽  
Simon Milov ◽  
Joel A. Goebel
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
The Right ◽  
Conductive Hearing

This case study summarizes findings in an adult male, aged 57, who presented to the Adult Audiology Clinic with aural atresia in the right ear resulting in a conductive hearing loss and a sudden sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear. Treatment options included reconstruction surgery in the right ear, bone anchored hearing aid in the right ear to overcome the conductive hearing loss, bone anchored hearing aid in the left ear for single sided deafness, and intratympanic steroid injections in the left ear to salvage hearing.This case study highlights that when a patient is educated on all available options the patient is then able to make a decision comfortable to him and to help improve his hearing.

Efficacy of Hearing-Aid Based Telephone Strategies for Listeners with Moderate-to-Severe Hearing Loss

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 059-070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin M. Picou ◽  
Todd A. Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Severe Hearing Loss ◽  
Acoustic Coupling ◽  
Wireless Routing

Background: Understanding speech over the telephone when listening in noisy environments may present a significant challenge for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare speech recognition and subjective ratings across several hearing aid-based telephone listening strategies for individuals with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss. Research Design: Speech recognition and subjective ratings were evaluated for a simulated telephone signal. The strategies evaluated included acoustic telephone, unilateral telecoil, unilateral wireless streaming, and bilateral wireless streaming. Participants were seated in a noisy room for all evaluations. Study Sample: Eighteen adults, aged 49–88 yr, with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss participated. Data Collection and Analysis: Speech recognition scores on the Connected Speech Test were converted to rationalized arcsine units and analyzed using analysis of variance testing and Tukey post hoc analyses. Subjective ratings of ease and comfort were also analyzed in this manner. Results: Speech recognition performance was poorest with acoustic coupling to the telephone and best with bilateral wireless routing. Telecoil coupling resulted in better speech recognition performance than acoustic coupling, but was significantly poorer than bilateral wireless routing. Furthermore, unilateral wireless routing and telecoil coupling generally led to similar speech recognition performance, except in lower-level background noise conditions, for which unilateral routing resulted in better performance than the telecoil. Conclusions: For people with moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss, acoustic telephone listening with a hearing aid may not lead to acceptable performance in noise. Although unilateral routing options (telecoil and wireless streaming) improved performance, speech recognition performance and subjective ratings of ease and comfort were best when bilateral wireless routing was used. These results suggest that wireless routing is a potentially beneficial telephone listening strategy for listeners with moderate-to-severe hearing loss who are fitted with limited venting if the telephone signal is routed to both ears. Unilateral wireless routing may provide similar benefits to traditional unilateral telecoil. However, the newer wireless systems may have the advantage for some listeners in that they do not include some of the positioning constraints associated with telecoil use.

Bone-anchored hearing aids and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss: why do patients reject them?

2015 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Siau ◽  
B Dhillon ◽  
R Andrews ◽  
K M J Green
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Uptake Rate ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Sensorineural Deafness ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Device Implantation ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid

AbstractObjectives:This study aimed to report the bone-anchored hearing aid uptake and the reasons for their rejection by unilateral sensorineural deafness patients.Methods:A retrospective review of 90 consecutive unilateral sensorineural deafness patients referred to the Greater Manchester Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Programme between September 2008 and August 2011 was performed.Results:In all, 79 (87.8 per cent) were deemed audiologically suitable: 24 (30.3 per cent) eventually had a bone-anchored hearing aid implanted and 55 (69.6 per cent) patients declined. Of those who declined, 26 (47.3 per cent) cited perceived limited benefits, 18 (32.7 per cent) cited reservations regarding surgery, 13 (23.6 per cent) preferred a wireless contralateral routing of sound device and 12 (21.8 per cent) cited cosmetic reasons. In all, 32 (40.5 per cent) suitable patients eventually chose the wireless contralateral routing of sound device.Conclusion:The uptake rate was 30 per cent for audiologically suitable patients. Almost half of suitable patients did not perceive a sufficient benefit to proceed to device implantation and a significant proportion rejected it. It is therefore important that clinicians do not to rush to implant all unilateral sensorineural hearing loss patients with a bone-anchored hearing aid.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document