Impairment Tutorial: Hearing Impairment

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-11
Author(s):  
Kathryn Mueller ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
Loud Noise ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Recent Exposure ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
The Us ◽  
Record Data ◽  
Rating Sheet

Abstract A 1999 study of adults showed hearing loss was the fifth most common disability in the US population, and almost 50% of workers in carpentry, plumbing, and mining had hearing impairment. Determining hearing impairment according to the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, Section 11.2a, Criteria for Rating Impairment Due to Hearing Loss, is straightforward, if limited. Examiners should be aware that hearing can be temporarily impaired by recent exposure to loud noise and should test only after an extended period without such exposure. Audiometers should be properly calibrated, and technicians must be appropriately trained to obtain accurate measurements. The evaluator should separately test both of the individual's ears at 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and 3000 Hz (the representative or test frequencies) and then identify the total worst ear decibel level using the AMA Guides Table 11-1 or 11-2. The evaluator can use Tale 11-3 to convert hearing impairment to whole person loss. Tinnitus also can be rated if a hearing loss in that ear affects speech discrimination; in such instances, the tinnitus rating is limited to a 5% loss. The article includes a Hearing Impairment Rating Sheet that can be used to record data from the hearing impairment evaluation.

Erratum

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 2-2
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Loud Noise ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Pure Tone Audiogram ◽  
Recent Exposure ◽  
Whole Person

Abstract This tutorial will help clinicians understand the components of a hearing impairment assessment and rating it in accordance with the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, particularly Chapter 9. A hearing impairment evaluation is derived from a pure-tone audiogram and is always based on the functioning of both ears, even if hearing loss is apparent in only one ear. Hearing can be temporarily impaired by recent exposure to loud noise, and an audiogram should be conducted only after an extended period of rest (eg, 12 to 14 hours) after any exposure to loud noises. Audiometers must be properly calibrated and typically measure the decibel loss at 500, 1000, 20000, and 3000 Hz (the test frequencies), the frequencies that represent everyday auditory stimuli. The following steps can be used to determine hearing impairment: 1) test each ear separately using the test frequencies; 2) total the hearing threshold decibel levels of the test frequencies for each ear to determine the decibel sum of hearing threshold levels; 3) use Table 1 to determine a monaural hearing impairment based on the totals calculated in step 2; 4) use Table 2 to calculate the binaural hearing impairment; 5) use Table 3 to convert the binaural hearing loss impairment to whole person impairment. Examples demonstrate the steps and calculations.

Rating Cognitive Impairment, Part 2: Objective and Evidence-Based Integration of Neuropsychology Testing

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-12
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barth ◽  
John E. Meyers
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Loss Of Hearing ◽  
Relationship Of

Abstract Hearing impairment rating determination is described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, Section 11.2a, Criteria for Rating Impairment Due to Hearing Loss. A hearing impairment evaluation for adults who have acquired language skills is derived from a pure-tone audiogram and always is based on the functioning of both ears even though hearing loss may be present in only one ear. Audiometers should be properly calibrated, and technicians should be appropriately trained to obtain accurate measurements. Audiograms typically are obtained at four frequencies (test frequencies): 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 Hz, which are considered to be representative of everyday auditory speech ranges. The evaluator tests the individual's right and left ears at the test frequencies and adds the decibel levels for each of these frequencies for each ear separately; consults Table 11-2, Computation of Binaural Hearing Impairment; and finally consults Table 11-3, Relationship of Binaural Hearing Impairment to Impairment of the Whole Person. Tinnitus can be rated if the individual experiences hearing loss in the ear and this loss affects speech discrimination; loss is limited to a maximum of 5% loss. The AMA Guides provides no correction in the hearing section for age-related loss of hearing, although the latter may be apportionable. A table presents a model hearing impairment report.

Progressive Hearing Loss in Usher's Syndrome

1989 ◽  
Vol 98 (11) ◽  
pp. 863-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seppo Karjalainen ◽  
Leena Pakarinen ◽  
Helena Kääriäinen ◽  
Markku Teräsvirta ◽  
Eero Vartiainen
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Auditory Threshold ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Threshold Values ◽  
Progressive Hearing Loss ◽  
Usher’S Syndrome

In 18 patients with Usher's syndrome, progressive hearing loss was verified audiologically in eight cases. Despite poor auditory threshold values and low speech discrimination scores, there was only one patient who could not communicate with speech. The possibility of hearing impairment being mainly progressive in Usher's syndrome is discussed.

The Development of Constant Items for Speech Discrimination Testing

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 656-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elmer Owens ◽  
Earl D. Schubert
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Closed Set ◽  
Response System ◽  
Speech Discrimination Test ◽  
Discrimination Testing ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Manner Of Articulation

Subjects were English-speaking adults with hearing impairment. Etiology of hearing loss did not enter into selection. Consonant errors were observed on speech discrimination test lists employing a closed-set response system. Fifteen subjects were employed for the first list and 20 each for the remaining four lists, with an occasional subject serving in more than one group. Confusions between unvoiced and voiced consonants rarely occurred; the /r/ and /l/ were seldom confused with other phonemes; and nasals were seldom confused with non-nasals. Discrimination difficulty was related to both place and manner of articulation.

Effect of speechreading in presbycusis: Do we have a third ear?

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 38-44
Author(s):  
Luis Roque Reis ◽  
Pedro Escada
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Spoken Word Recognition ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Spoken Word ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Age Related Hearing Loss

Introduction: Evidence regarding the effect of speechreading is lacking in age-related hearing loss (presbycusis). Thus, in individuals with presbycusis, this study determined whether speechreading would improve word intelligibility. Moreover, the study investigated the effect of speechreading on word intelligibility depending on hearing impairment severity. Materials and methods: This analytical, cross-sectional study involved two groups of individuals aged > 65 years that were enrolled by convenience sampling: 29 individuals with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss compatible with presbycusis (n=58 ears; mean age, 74.1±9.4 years) and 10 controls with at-most-mild hearing loss (n=58 ears; mean age, 73.8±8.5 years). All participants underwent a comprehensive medical and audiological evaluation, which included speech audiometry with and without observation of the audiologist’s face, i.e. speechreading. Within each group, the effect of speechreading was determined as a change in the speech reception threshold. For all statistical analyses, p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Both in individuals with presbycusis and controls, speechreading significantly improved speech discrimination (p<.001<.05); however, compared to controls, this effect of speechreading on speech discrimination was more pronounced in individuals with presbycusis (p<.001). Discussion: Individuals with presbycusis or hearing impairment displayed improved spoken-word intelligibility when spoken-word recognition was coupled with speechreading. Thus, speechreading may serve as a “third ear”.

scholarly journals Factors influencing the choice of prescribed hearing aid

2012 ◽  
Vol 140 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 662-665
Author(s):  
Ljubica Zivic ◽  
Danijela Zivic
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Factors Influencing

In our paper we would like to emphasize the complexity of hearing aid prescription process. It is connected to a series of factors which impact the choice of hearing aid; type of hearing loss, degree of hearing loss according to the average hearing threshold expressed within the range from 500 Hz to 4000 Hz on a tonal audiogram, audiometric curve configuration, speech discrimination ability, patients? age at which the hearing impairment occurred, time elapsed between the occurrence of hearing impairment and prescription of a hearing aid, patients? age, physical and mental health and their cognitive function, anatomical characteristics of the auricle and external auditory canal, patient and parent motivation, cosmetic factors, financial abilities, cooperation with hearing aids manufacturers. This paper is important for everyday practice and can be used as a kind of guideline to the hearing aid prescription process.

Feasibility of smartphone-based hearing-aid apps for patients with mild hearing loss: an exploratory pilot study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willy Nguyen ◽  
Miseung Koo ◽  
Seung Ha Oh ◽  
Jun Ho Lee ◽  
Moo Kyun Park
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Mild Hearing Loss ◽  
Consumer Devices ◽  
Selection Of

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document