scholarly journals Psychometric Comparison of the Hearing in Noise Test and the American English Matrix Test

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (04) ◽  
pp. 315-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jumana Harianawala ◽  
Jason Galster ◽  
Benjamin Hornsby
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
American English ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Corpus ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Intensity Functions

AbstractThe hearing in noise test (HINT) is the most popular adaptive test used to evaluate speech in noise performance, especially in context of hearing aid features. However, the number of conditions that can be tested on the HINT is limited by a small speech corpus. The American English Matrix test (AEMT) is a new alternative adaptive speech in noise test with a larger speech corpus. The study examined the relationships between the performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT.To examine whether there was a difference in performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT. A secondary purpose, given the AEMT’s steep performance-intensity function, was to determine whether the AEMT is more sensitive to changes in speech recognition resulting from directional (DIR) microphone processing in hearing aids.A repeated measures design was used in this study. Multiple measurements were made on each subject. Each measurement involved a different experimental condition.Ten adults with hearing loss participated in this study.All participants completed the AEMT and HINT, using adaptive and fixed test formats while wearing hearing aids. Speech recognition was assessed in two hearing aid microphone settings—omnidirectional and fixed DIR. All testing was conducted via sound field presentation. Performance on HINT and AEMT were systematically compared across all test conditions using a linear model with repeated measures.The results of this study revealed that adult hearing aid users perform differently on the HINT and AEMT, with adaptive AEMT testing yielding significantly better (more negative) thresholds than the HINT. Slopes of performance intensity functions obtained by testing at multiple fixed signal-to-noise ratios, revealed a somewhat steeper slope for the HINT compared with the AEMT. Despite this steeper slope, the benefit provided by DIR microphones was not significantly different between the two speech tests.The observation of similar DIR benefits of the HINT and AEMT suggests that the HINT and AEMT are equally sensitive to changes in speech recognition thresholds following intervention. Therefore, the decision to use the AEMT or the HINT will depend on the purpose of the study and/or the technology being investigated. Other test related factors such as available sentence corpus, learning effects and test time will also influence test selection.

scholarly journals Effects of Wireless Remote Microphone on Speech Recognition in Noise for Hearing Aid Users in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Chen ◽  
Zhe Wang ◽  
Ruijuan Dong ◽  
Xinxing Fu ◽  
Yuan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Test Distance

Objective: This study was aimed at evaluating improvements in speech-in-noise recognition ability as measured by signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) with the use of wireless remote microphone technology. These microphones transmit digital signals via radio frequency directly to hearing aids and may be a valuable assistive listening device for the hearing-impaired population of Mandarin speakers in China.Methods: Twenty-three adults (aged 19–80 years old) and fourteen children (aged 8–17 years old) with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were recruited. The Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test was used to test speech recognition ability in adult subjects, and the Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test for Children was used for children. The subjects’ perceived SNR was measured using sentence recognition ability at three different listening distances of 1.5, 3, and 6 m. At each distance, SNR was obtained under three device settings: hearing aid microphone alone, wireless remote microphone alone, and hearing aid microphone and wireless remote microphone simultaneously.Results: At each test distance, for both adult and pediatric groups, speech-in-noise recognition thresholds were significantly lower with the use of the wireless remote microphone in comparison with the hearing aid microphones alone (P < 0.05), indicating better SNR performance with the wireless remote microphone. Moreover, when the wireless remote microphone was used, test distance had no effect on speech-in-noise recognition for either adults or children.Conclusion: Wireless remote microphone technology can significantly improve speech recognition performance in challenging listening environments for Mandarin speaking hearing aid users in China.

Are Two Ears Not Better Than One?

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 171-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Mead Killion ◽  
Monica A. Mennite ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Analysis Experiment ◽  
Insert Earphones ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: The decision to fit one or two hearing aids in individuals with binaural hearing loss has been debated for years. Although some 78% of U.S. hearing aid fittings are binaural (Kochkin , 2010), Walden and Walden (2005) presented data showing that 82% (23 of 28 patients) of their sample obtained significantly better speech recognition in noise scores when wearing one hearing aid as opposed to two. Purpose: To conduct two new experiments to fuel the monaural/binaural debate. The first experiment was a replication of Walden and Walden (2005), whereas the second experiment examined the use of binaural cues to improve speech recognition in noise. Research Design: A repeated measures experimental design. Study Sample: Twenty veterans (aged 59–85 yr), with mild to moderately severe binaurally symmetrical hearing loss who wore binaural hearing aids were recruited from the Audiology Department at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. Data Collection and Analysis: Experiment 1 followed the procedures of the Walden and Walden study, where signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was measured using the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test on participants who were aided with their current hearing aids. Signal and noise were presented in the sound booth at 0° azimuth under five test conditions: (1) right ear aided, (2) left ear aided, (3) both ears aided, (4) right ear aided, left ear plugged, and (5) unaided. The opposite ear in (1) and (2) was left open. In Experiment 2, binaural Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) manikin recordings made in Lou Malnati's pizza restaurant during a busy period provided a typical real-world noise, while prerecorded target sentences were presented through a small loudspeaker located in front of the KEMAR manikin. Subjects listened to the resulting binaural recordings through insert earphones under the following four conditions: (1) binaural, (2) diotic, (3) monaural left, and (4) monaural right. Results: Results of repeated measures ANOVAs demonstrated that the best speech recognition in noise performance was obtained by most participants with both ears aided in Experiment 1 and in the binaural condition in Experiment 2. Conclusions: In both experiments, only 20% of our subjects did better in noise with a single ear, roughly similar to the earlier Jerger et al (1993) finding that 8–10% of elderly hearing aid users preferred one hearing aid.

Short-Term and Long-Term Hearing Aid Benefit and User Satisfaction: A Comparison between Two Fitting Protocols

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (06) ◽  
pp. 482-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu-Feng Shi ◽  
Karen A. Doherty ◽  
Tammy M. Kordas ◽  
Joseph T. Pellegrino
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Daily Life ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Currently published hearing aid fitting protocols recommend speech-in-noise testing and loudness measures, but it remains unclear how these measures affect hearing aid benefit and user satisfaction. This study compared two protocols in their effects on benefit and satisfaction. Protocol A included an electroacoustic analysis, real-ear measures, and hearing aid adjustments based on users' comments. Protocol B included all of Protocol A and a speech-in-noise test, loudness discomfort levels, and aided loudness. Thirty-two participants completed the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) at 45 days and three months post–initial fitting. Fewer hearing aid adjustments were made to the hearing aids for participants fitted with Protocol B than participants fitted with Protocol A, but final gains were similar for both groups. Although similar APHAB scores were obtained for both protocols, SADL scores decreased between 45 days and three months for Protocol A. Los protocoles de amplificación de auxiliares auditivo actualmente publicados recomiendan pruebas de lenguaje en ruido y mediciones de apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad (sonoridad), pero no está claro cómo estas mediciones afectan el beneficio de un auxiliar auditivo y la satisfacción del usuario. El estudio comparó dos protocolos en cuanto a sus efectos sobre beneficio y satisfacción. El Protocolo A incluyó un análisis electroacústico, mediciones de oído real y ajuste en el auxiliar auditivo basados en los comentarios del usuario. El Protocolo B incluyó todas las pruebas del Protocolo A, además de una prueba de audición en ruido, de niveles de molestia en la apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad y de sonoridad amplificada. Treinta y dos participantes completaron el Perfil Abreviado de Beneficio del Auxiliar Auditivo (APHAB) y la prueba de Satisfacción con la Amplificación en la Vida Diaria (SADL) a los 45 días y a los tres meses de la adaptación inicial. Tuvieron que hacerse menos ajustes en el audífono en los auxiliares auditivos de participantes adaptados con el Protocolo B, que en los participantes adaptados con el Protocolo A, pero las ganancias finales fueron similares en ambos grupos. Aunque se obtuvieron puntajes APHAB similares en ambos protocolos, los puntajes SADL disminuyeron entre los 45 días y los tres meses para el Protocolo A.

Can a Remotely Delivered Auditory Training Program Improve Speech-in-Noise Understanding?

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey B. Abrams ◽  
Kirsten Bock ◽  
Ryan L. Irey
Keyword(s):  
Training Program ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Auditory Training ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Attractive Alternative ◽  
Time On Task ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Noise Test

PurposeThe aims of this study were to determine if a remotely delivered, Internet-based auditory training (AT) program improved speech-in-noise understanding and if the number of hours spent engaged in the program influenced postintervention speech-in-noise understanding.MethodTwenty-nine first-time hearing aid users were randomized into an AT group (hearing aids + 3 week remotely delivered, Internet-based auditory training program) or a control group (hearing aids alone). The Hearing in Noise Test (Nilsson, Soli, & Sullivan, 1994) and the Words-in-Noise test (Wilson, 2003) were administered to both groups at baseline + 1 week and immediately at the completion of the 3 weeks of auditory training.ResultsSpeech-in-noise understanding improved for both groups at the completion of the study; however, there was not a statistically significant difference in postintervention improvement between the AT and control groups. Although the number of hours the participants engaged in the AT program was far fewer than prescribed, time on task influenced the postintervention Words-in-Noise but not Hearing in Noise Test scores.ConclusionAlthough remotely delivered, Internet-based AT programs represent an attractive alternative to resource-intensive, clinic-based interventions, their demonstrated efficacy continues to remain a challenge due in part to issues associated with compliance.

Mild-Gain Hearing Aids as a Treatment for Adults with Self-Reported Hearing Difficulties

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (06) ◽  
pp. 477-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina M. Roup ◽  
Emily Post ◽  
Jessica Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
And Performance

AbstractThere is a growing body of evidence demonstrating self-reported hearing difficulties (HD; i.e., substantial difficulty in understanding speech in complex listening situations) in adults with normal pure-tone sensitivity. Anecdotally, some audiologists have tried personal mild-gain amplification as a treatment option for adults with HD. In 2008, Kuk and colleagues reported positive results of a mild-gain hearing aid trial for children with auditory processing disorders. To date, however, there have been no studies investigating the benefit of mild-gain amplification to treat HD in adults with normal audiograms.The effectiveness of a four-week trial with mild-gain amplification for adults with self-reported HD and clinically normal hearing sensitivity was investigated.Two participant groups with normal pure-tone audiograms (thresholds ≤20 dB HL 250–8000 Hz) were recruited to study the effects of self-reported HD on hearing handicap, self-perceived auditory processing difficulties, and performance on a speech-in-noise task. Furthermore, the benefit of mild-gain amplification was examined after a four-week hearing aid trial on self-perceived hearing handicap and auditory processing difficulties, and performance on an aided speech-in-noise task. Effects were analyzed using a mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance. Posthoc analyses were performed for each significant main effect.Thirty-nine participants participated in two groups. Twenty normal hearing adults (19–27 yr) without complaints of HD were recruited as a control group. Nineteen normal hearing adults (18–58 yr) with self-reported HD were recruited for the mild-gain hearing aid trial.Subjective complaints of HD were assessed with two questionnaires (the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults [HHIA] and the Auditory Processing Questionnaire [APQ]) and an auditory processing test battery (SCAN:3-A, dichotic digit recognition, gaps-in-noise test, and the 500-Hz masking level difference). Speech-in-noise abilities were assessed before and after hearing aid trial using the Revised Speech Perception in Noise Test (R-SPIN) at multiple signal-to-noise ratios. Hearing aid use and impressions during the hearing aid trial were recorded.Results demonstrated that participants with HD perceived significantly greater hearing handicap (HHIA) and greater self-perceived auditory processing difficulties (APQ) than the control group. Participants with HD performed significantly poorer on the R-SPIN relative to controls, especially for low-predictability items. Results of the hearing aid trial for participants with HD revealed significant improvements in hearing handicap, self-perceived auditory processing difficulties, and speech-in-noise performance relative to prehearing aid trial measures. The hearing aids were well tolerated by the majority of participants with HD , with most of them wearing the hearing aids an average of 1–4 h per day.The results from the present study suggest that adults who present with complaints of HD even in the presence of normal hearing sensitivity represent a unique population that warrants further evaluation beyond the standard hearing test. Furthermore, results from the hearing aid trial suggest that mild-gain amplification is a viable treatment option for at least some individuals with HD.

scholarly journals Development of a Revised Performance-Perceptual Test Using Quick Speech in Noise Test Material and Its Norms

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (03) ◽  
pp. 176-184
Author(s):  
Hua Ou ◽  
Matthew Wetmore
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Test Material ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Perceptual Test ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Test Materials

AbstractTwo audiometric speech measures have been recognized to have associations with hearing aid use success: the Quick Speech in Noise (QuickSIN) test and the Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT). The PPT involves using the same speech test material (Hearing in Noise Test [HINT]) twice, to evaluate patients’ objective and subjective speech recognition performance in noise and the discrepancy between the two measures (Performance-Perceptual Discrepancy [PPDIS]). Using the QuickSIN to conduct the PPT (revised-PPT) may provide clinicians two pieces of important information from one test to help predict hearing aid use success and the need for counseling. Moreover, we could achieve the desired clinical efficiency without purchasing additional test materials.This study aimed (1) to evaluate the validity and reliability of using the QuickSIN speech material to administer the PPT and (2) to establish normative data across listeners with normal hearing (NH) and hearing loss (HL).This study used a repeated measures design.Of the total 65 participants between 18 and 88 years of age, 20 (31%) had NH and 45 (69%) had sensorineural HL, ranging from mild to profound in both ears. Thirty-two of the 45 participants with HL were hearing aid users.All participants completed the original PPT using HINT and the revised-PPT using QuickSIN, via sound field. Generalized linear mixed models were used to compare the performance, perceptual, and PPDIS data between the two test materials across all participants. Normative data for the revised-PPT were established from all participants.Significant main effects for both the test material and hearing status were found for the performance and perceptual data. All interactions were nonsignificant. There were no significant PPDIS differences between the original PPT and the revised-PPT. Normative values for the revised-PPT were established and comparable to the norms for the original PPT in the present study. The test–retest results suggested that the revised-PPT has good reliability. In addition, it appeared that there was a negative association between underestimation of hearing ability and hearing aid use success.It is concluded that the QuickSIN speech material can replace HINT to measure PPT. The revised-PPT may serve as a useful and efficient clinical tool in any clinics for hearing aid fitting and counseling.

Quantification of Directional Benefit across Different Polar Response Patterns

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (09) ◽  
pp. 649-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Bentler ◽  
Jessica L.M. Egge ◽  
Jill L. Tubbs ◽  
Andrew B. Dittberner ◽  
Gregory A. Flamme
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Directional Microphones ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
The Right

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between the directivity of a directional microphone hearing aid and listener performance. Hearing aids were fit bilaterally to 19 subjects with sensorineural hearing loss, and five microphone conditions were assessed: omnidirectional, cardioid, hypercardioid, supercardioid, and "monofit," wherein the left hearing aid was set to omnidirectional and the right hearing aid to hypercardioid. Speech perception performance was assessed using the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and the Connected Speech Test (CST). Subjects also assessed eight domains of sound quality for three stimuli (speech in quiet, speech in noise, and music). A diffuse soundfield system composed of eight loudspeakers forming the corners of a cube was used to output the background noise for the speech perception tasks and the three stimuli used for sound quality judgments. Results indicated that there were no significant differences in the HINT or CST performance, or sound quality judgments, across the four directional microphone conditions when tested in a diffuse field. Of particular interest was the monofit condition: Performance on speech perception tests was the same whether one or two directional microphones were used.

Development of a Revised Performance-Perceptual Test Using Quick Speech in Noise Test Material and Its Norms

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua Ou ◽  
Matthew Wetmore
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Test Material ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Perceptual Test ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Test Materials

Background: Two audiometric speech measures have been recognized to have associations with hearingaid use success: the Quick Speech in Noise (QuickSIN) test and the Performance-Perceptual Test(PPT). The PPT involves using the same speech test material (Hearing in Noise Test [HINT]) twice, toevaluate patients’ objective and subjective speech recognition performance in noise and the discrepancybetween the two measures (Performance-Perceptual Discrepancy [PPDIS]). Using the QuickSIN to conductthe PPT (revised-PPT) may provide clinicians two pieces of important information from one test tohelp predict hearing aid use success and the need for counseling. Moreover, we could achieve the desiredclinical efficiency without purchasing additional test materials.<br />Purpose: This study aimed (1) to evaluate the validity and reliability of using the QuickSIN speech materialto administer the PPT and (2) to establish normative data across listeners with normal hearing (NH)and hearing loss (HL).<br />Research Design: This study used a repeated measures design.<br />Study Sample: Of the total 65 participants between 18 and 88 years of age, 20 (31%) had NH and 45(69%) had sensorineural HL, ranging from mild to profound in both ears. Thirty-two of the 45 participantswith HL were hearing aid users.Data Collection and Analysis: All participants completed the original PPT using HINT and the revised-PPT using QuickSIN, via sound field. Generalized linear mixed models were used to compare the performance,perceptual, and PPDIS data between the two test materials across all participants. Normativedata for the revised-PPT were established from all participants.<br />Results: Significant main effects for both the test material and hearing status were found for the performanceand perceptual data. All interactions were nonsignificant. There were no significant PPDISdifferences between the original PPT and the revised-PPT. Normative values for the revised-PPT wereestablished and comparable to the norms for the original PPT in the present study. The test–retest resultssuggested that the revised-PPT has good reliability. In addition, it appeared that there was a negativeassociation between underestimation of hearing ability and hearing aid use success.<br />Conclusions: It is concluded that the QuickSIN speech material can replace HINT to measure PPT. Therevised-PPT may serve as a useful and efficient clinical tool in any clinics for hearing aid fitting and counseling.<br />

Speech intelligibility with bilateral bone-anchored hearing aids: the Birmingham experience

2002 ◽  
Vol 116 (S28) ◽  
pp. 47-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunil N. Dutt ◽  
Ann-Louise McDermott ◽  
Stuart P. Burrell ◽  
Huw R. Cooper ◽  
Andrew P. Reid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Subjective Analysis ◽  
Objective Testing ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

The Birmingham bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) programme, since its inception in 1988, has fitted more than 300 patients with unilateral bone-anchored hearing aids. Recently, some of the patients who benefited extremely well with unilateral aids applied for bilateral amplification. To date, 15 patients have been fitted with bilateral BAHAs. The benefits of bilateral amplification have been compared to unilateral amplification in 11 of these patients who have used their second BAHA for 12 months or longer. Following a subjective analysis in the form of comprehensive questionnaires, objective testing was undertaken to assess specific issues such as ‘speech recognition in quiet’, ‘speech recognition in noise’ and a modified ‘speech-in-simulated-party-noise’ (Plomp) test.‘Speech in quiet’ testing revealed a 100 per cent score with both unilateral and bilateral BAHAs. With ‘speech in noise’ all 11 patients scored marginally better with bilateral aids compared to best unilateral responses. The modified Plomp test demonstrated that bilateral BAHAs provided maximum flexibility when the origin of noise cannot be controlled as in day-to-day situations. In this small case series the results are positive and are comparable to the experience of the Nijmegen BAHA group.

scholarly journals Benefits of active middle ear implants over hearing aids in patients with sloping high tone hearing loss: comparison with hearing aids

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 218-223
Author(s):  
J.M. Lee ◽  
J.H. Jeon ◽  
I.S. Moon ◽  
J.Y. Choi
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
High Tone ◽  
Sono Stati ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Middle Ear Implants ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

In questo studio retrospettivo, abbiamo confrontato i benefici oggettivi e soggettivi degli impianti attivi dell’orecchio medio (AMEI) rispetto alle tradizionali protesi acustiche (HA) nei pazienti con perdita dell’udito per le frequenze acute. Trentaquattro pazienti con ipoacusia neurosensoriale sono stati trattati con l’impianto di AMEI. Tra questi, sei avevano un audiogramma “in discesa” con perdita dell’udito per le frequenze acute, ed avevano usato per più di sei mesi HA. È stata quindi eseguita una valutazione oggettiva, tramite l’audiometria tonale e il test di riconoscimento delle parole, una versione coreana del “Hearing in Noise Test” (K-HINT), ed una valutazione soggettiva tramite il seguente questionario: Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). I pazienti sono stati sottoposti ai suddetti test in tre occasioni distinte: 1) prima della chirurgia, senza protesi; 2) prima della chirurgia, con HA; 3) tre mesi dopo l’impianto di AMEI. Il guadagno medio per le alte frequenze (≥ 2 kHz) si è rivelato migliore con AMEI che con HA. Sebbene il risultato non ha raggiunto un livello di significatività statistica, gli impianti attivi dell’orecchio medio hanno mostrato un punteggio di riconoscimento delle parole superiore rispetto a HA. Ad ogni modo, il livello di comoda udibilità al quale il punteggio di riconoscimento delle parole è stato testato si è rivelato significativamente più basso con AMEI rispetto ad HA. Al K-HINT i pazienti con AMEI hanno mostrato un migliore riconoscimento rispetto ai risultati ottenuti con HA, sia in condizione di quiete sia di rumore. Gli score APAHB hanno rivelato che i pazienti erano più soddisfatti con AMEI. L’uso degli impianti attivi dell’orecchio medio in pazienti con perdita dell’udito per le frequenze acute ha permesso di ottenere risultati migliori rispetto all’utilizzo delle protesi tradizionali. Basandoci su questi dati, gli AMEI hanno offerto risultati oggettivi e soggettivi migliori, e pertanto, potrebbero rappresentare una valida alternativa per il trattamento delle ipoacusie con audiogramma in discesa.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document