scholarly journals Using a Digital Language Processor to Quantify the Auditory Environment and the Effect of Hearing Aids for Adults with Hearing Loss

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (04) ◽  
pp. 279-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelsey E. Klein ◽  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Ruth A. Bentler

AbstractAuditory environments can influence the communication function of individuals with hearing loss and the effects of hearing aids. Therefore, a tool that can objectively characterize a patient’s real-world auditory environments is needed.To use the Language Environment Analysis (LENA) system to quantify the auditory environments of adults with hearing loss, to examine if the use of hearing aids changes a user’s auditory environment, and to determine the association between LENA variables and self-report hearing aid outcome measures.This study used a crossover design.Participants included 22 adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss, age 64–82 yr.Participants were fitted with bilateral behind-the-ear hearing aids from a major manufacturer.The LENA system consists of a digital language processor (DLP) that is worn by an individual and records up to 16 hr of the individual’s auditory environment. The recording is then automatically categorized according to time spent in different types of auditory environments (e.g., meaningful speech and TV/electronic sound) by the LENA algorithms. The LENA system also characterizes the user’s auditory environment by providing the sound levels of different auditory categories. Participants in the present study wore a LENA DLP in an unaided condition and aided condition, which each lasted six to eight days. Participants wore bilateral hearing aids in the aided condition. Percentage of time spent in each auditory environment, as well as median levels of TV/electronic sounds and speech, were compared between subjects’ unaided and aided conditions using paired sample t tests. LENA data were also compared to self-report measures of hearing disability and hearing aid benefit using Pearson correlations.Overall, participants spent the greatest percentage of time in silence (∼40%), relative to other auditory environments. Participants spent ∼12% and 26% of their time in meaningful speech and TV/electronic sound environments, respectively. No significant differences were found between mean percentage of time spent in each auditory environment in the unaided and aided conditions. Median TV/electronic sound levels were on average 2.4 dB lower in the aided condition than in the unaided condition; speech levels were not significantly different between the two conditions. TV/electronic sound and speech levels did not significantly correlate with self-report data.The LENA system can provide rich data to characterize the everyday auditory environments of older adults with hearing loss. Although TV/electronic sound level was significantly lower in the aided than unaided condition, the use of hearing aids seemed not to substantially change users’ auditory environments. Because there is no significant association between objective LENA variables and self-report questionnaire outcomes, these two types of measures may assess different aspects of communication function. The feasibility of using LENA in clinical settings is discussed.

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Convery ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Carly Meyer

Purpose Hearing loss self-management refers to the knowledge and skills people use to manage the effects of hearing loss on all aspects of their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Method Thirty-seven adults with hearing loss, all of whom were current users of bilateral hearing aids, participated in this observational study. The participants completed self-report inventories probing their hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between individual domains of hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Results Participants who reported better self-management of the effects of their hearing loss on their emotional well-being and social participation were more likely to report less aided listening difficulty in noisy and reverberant environments and greater satisfaction with the effect of their hearing aids on their self-image. Participants who reported better self-management in the areas of adhering to treatment, participating in shared decision making, accessing services and resources, attending appointments, and monitoring for changes in their hearing and functional status were more likely to report greater satisfaction with the sound quality and performance of their hearing aids. Conclusion Study findings highlight the potential for using information about a patient's hearing loss self-management in different domains as part of clinical decision making and management planning.


2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 642-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hartley ◽  
Elena Rochtchina ◽  
Philip Newall ◽  
Maryanne Golding ◽  
Paul Mitchell

Background: Hearing loss is a common sensory impairment experienced by older persons. Evidence shows that the use of hearing aids and/or assistive listening devices (ALDs) can benefit those with a hearing loss but that historically the uptake and use of these technologies has remained relatively low compared with the number of people who report a hearing loss. Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence, usage, and factors associated with the use of hearing aids and ALDs in an older representative Australian population. Research Design: A population-based survey. Study Sample: A total of 2956 persons out of 3914 eligible people between the ages of 49 and 99 yr (mean age 67.4 yr), living in the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney, completed a hearing study conducted from 1997 to 2003. Data Collection and Analysis: Hearing levels were assessed using pure tone audiometry, and subjects were administered a comprehensive hearing survey by audiologists, which included questions about hearing aid and ALD usage. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with hearing aid and ALD usage. Results: Of the surveyed population, 33% had a hearing loss as measured in the better ear. 4.4% had used an ALD in the past 12 mo, and 11% owned a hearing aid. Of current hearing aid owners, 24% never used their aids. ALD and hearing aid usage were found to be associated with increasing age, hearing loss, and self-perceived hearing disability. Conclusions: These results indicate that hearing aid ownership and ALD usage remains low in the older population. Given the significant proportion of older people who self-report and have a measured hearing loss, it is possible that more could be helped through the increased use of hearing aid and/or ALD technology. Greater efforts are needed to promote the benefits of these technologies and to support their use among older people with hearing loss.


2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (3S) ◽  
pp. 474-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Maidment ◽  
Melanie Ferguson

Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide an example of the Medical Research Council's guidelines for evaluating complex health care interventions in the context of smartphone-connected listening devices in adults with hearing loss. Method Twenty existing hearing aid users trialed 1 of the following smartphone-connected listening devices: made-for-smartphone hearing aids, a personal sound amplification product, and a smartphone “hearing aid” application used with either wireless or wired earphones. Following 2 weeks of use in their everyday lives, participants completed self-report outcome measures. Results Relative to conventional hearing aids, self-reported use, benefit, and satisfaction were higher, and residual disability was lower for made-for-smartphone hearing aids. The converse was found for the other smartphone-connected listening devices trialed. Similarly, overall usability was judged to be “above average” for the made-for-smartphone hearing aids, but “below average” for the remaining devices. Conclusions This developmental work, guided by the Medical Research Council's framework, lays the foundation for feasibility and pilot studies, leading to high-quality research assessing the effectiveness of smartphone-connected listening devices. This future evidence is necessary to guide health care commissioners and policymakers when considering new service delivery models for adults living with hearing loss.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack A Holman ◽  
Graham Naylor ◽  
Avril Drummond

People with hearing loss experience fatigue, and it is unknown whether this is alleviated by treatment with hearing aids. The objective of this study was to address this issue, and to investigate the possible concomitant effect of hearing-aid fitting on activity levels. An intervention group (n=53) who were due to be fitted with their first ever hearing aid(s) and a control group (n=53) who had hearing loss but no change in hearing aid status completed a battery of self-report outcome measures four times: once before fitting, and at two weeks, three months and six months post fitting. Self-report outcome measures at each assessment captured fatigue, listening effort, hearing handicap, auditory lifestyle, social participation restrictions and work, social and physical activity levels. Hearing-aid fitting led to a significant reduction in listening-related fatigue, but not general fatigue, in the intervention group compared to the control group. Additionally, social activity level increased and social participation restriction decreased significantly after hearing aid fitting in the intervention group compared to the control group. No significant interaction was found between working status and change in listening-related fatigue score. This study is the first to make longitudinal measurement of fatigue before and after first-ever hearing aid fitting and to identify an increase in social activity level after hearing aid fitting. These findings have important implications for future research and the clinical practice of hearing aid fitting.


1995 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 949-959 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Macrae

Excessive amplification by hearing aids causes temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift (PTS). This investigation addressed the question whether it might be possible to predict the eventual amount of PTS caused by excessive amplification from the amount of TTS it causes after a day of hearing aid use. Asymptotic TTS (ATS) to be expected as a result of hearing aid use was predicted for 8 children with sensorineural hearing loss and the predicted ATS was compared with observed permanent deterioration of their thresholds attributed to hearing aid use. There was good agreement between the predicted ATS and observed PTS at 500 to 2000 Hz. It follows that, for prediction of PTS caused by hearing aid use, the mean of the sound levels produced in the ear by the hearing aid is the correct equivalent continuous level (ECL) to use and that the Modified Power Law (MPL) is the appropriate method of adjusting the predictions for sensorineural hearing loss, because these have been shown to be appropriate for prediction of TTS caused by hearing aid use. Predictions of the PTS to be expected for the children that were carried out using the MPL and the mean level as the ECL were in good agreement with the observed PTS at 500 to 2000 Hz, whereas predictions of PTS based on an alternative method of correction for sensorineural hearing loss (the Continuation Hypothesis) were significantly less than the observed amounts. The results of the PTS predictions therefore confirmed the conclusions drawn from the results of the ATS predictions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-428
Author(s):  
Jasleen Singh ◽  
Karen A. Doherty

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess how the use of a mild-gain hearing aid can affect hearing handicap, motivation, and attitudes toward hearing aids for middle-age, normal-hearing adults who do and do not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Method A total of 20 participants (45–60 years of age) with clinically normal-hearing thresholds (< 25 dB HL) were enrolled in this study. Ten self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise, and 10 did not self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. All participants were fit with mild-gain hearing aids, bilaterally, and were asked to wear them for 2 weeks. Hearing handicap, attitudes toward hearing aids and hearing loss, and motivation to address hearing problems were evaluated before and after participants wore the hearing aids. Participants were also asked if they would consider purchasing a hearing aid before and after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Results After wearing the hearing aids for 2 weeks, hearing handicap scores decreased for the participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise. No changes in hearing handicap scores were observed for the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. The participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise also reported greater personal distress from their hearing problems, were more motivated to address their hearing problems, and had higher levels of hearing handicap compared to the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Only 20% (2/10) of the participants who self-reported trouble hearing in background noise reported that they would consider purchasing a hearing aid after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Conclusions The use of mild-gain hearing aids has the potential to reduce hearing handicap for normal-hearing, middle-age adults who self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. However, this may not be the most appropriate treatment option for their current hearing problems given that only 20% of these participants would consider purchasing a hearing aid after wearing hearing aids for 2 weeks.


2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leisha Eiten ◽  
Dawna Lewis

Background: For children with hearing loss, the benefits of FM systems in overcoming deleterious effects of noise, distance, and reverberation have led to recommendations for use beyond classroom settings. It is important that audiologists who recommend and fit these devices understand the rationale and procedures underlying fitting and verification. Objectives: This article reviews previousguidelines for FM verification, addresses technological advances, and introduces verification procedures appropriate for current FM and hearing-aid technology. Methods: Previous guidelines for verification of FM systems are reviewed. Those recommendations that are appropriate for current technology are addressed, as are procedures that are no longer adequate for hearing aids and FM systems utilizing more complex processing than in the past. Technological advances are discussed, and an updated approach to FM verification is proposed. Conclusions: Approaches to verification andfitting of FM systems must keep pace with advances in hearing-aid and FM technology. The transparency approach addressed in this paper is recommended for verification of FM systems coupled to hearing aids.


1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 204-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Dodds ◽  
Earl Harford

Persons with a high frequency hearing loss are difficult cases for whom to find suitable amplification. We have experienced some success with this problem in our Hearing Clinics using a specially designed earmold with a hearing aid. Thirty-five cases with high frequency hearing losses were selected from our clinical files for analysis of test results using standard, vented, and open earpieces. A statistical analysis of test results revealed that PB scores in sound field, using an average conversational intensity level (70 dB SPL), were enhanced when utilizing any one of the three earmolds. This result was due undoubtedly to increased sensitivity provided by the hearing aid. Only the open earmold used with a CROS hearing aid resulted in a significant improvement in discrimination when compared with the group’s unaided PB score under earphones or when comparing inter-earmold scores. These findings suggest that the inclusion of the open earmold with a CROS aid in the audiologist’s armamentarium should increase his flexibility in selecting hearing aids for persons with a high frequency hearing loss.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willy Nguyen ◽  
Miseung Koo ◽  
Seung Ha Oh ◽  
Jun Ho Lee ◽  
Moo Kyun Park

BACKGROUND Underuse of hearing aids is caused by several factors, including the stigma associated with hearing disability, affordability, and lack of awareness of rising hearing impairment associated with the growing population. Thus, there is a significant opportunity for the development of direct-to-consumer devices. For the past few years, smartphone-based hearing-aid apps have become more numerous and diverse, but few studies have investigated them. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to elucidate the electroacoustic characteristics and potential user benefits of a selection of currently available hearing-aid apps. METHODS We investigated the apps based on hearing-aid control standards (American National Standards Institute) using measurement procedures from previous studies. We categorized the apps and excluded those we considered inefficient. We investigated a selection of user-friendly, low-end apps, EarMachine and Sound Amplifier, with warble-tone audiometry, word recognition testing in unaided and aided conditions, and hearing-in-noise test in quiet and noise-front conditions in a group of users with mild hearing impairment (n = 7) as a pilot for a future long-term investigation. Results from the apps were compared with those of a conventional hearing aid. RESULTS Five of 14 apps were considered unusable based on low scores in several metrics, while the others varied across the range of electroacoustic measurements. The apps that we considered “high end” that provided lower processing latencies and audiogram-based fitting algorithms were superior overall. The clinical performance of the listeners tended to be better when using hearing aid, while the low end hearing-aid apps had limited benefits on the users. CONCLUSIONS Some apps showed the potential to benefit users with limited cases of minimal or mild hearing loss if the inconvenience of relatively poor electroacoustic performance did not outweigh the benefits of amplification.


Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Octav Chipara ◽  
Anna Gudjonsdottir ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. Purpose To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. Research Design An observational study. Study Sample Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP. Results For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029–0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28–0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1. Conclusion The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document