Implantable Hearing Devices

2009 ◽  
pp. 81-88
Author(s):  
Yisgav Shapira ◽  
Thomas J. Balkany
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Devices

Foundations of Language Development in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Infants

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-32
Author(s):  
Dani Levine ◽  
Daniela Avelar ◽  
Roberta Michnick Golinkoff ◽  
Kathy Hirsh-Pasek ◽  
Derek M. Houston
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Social Processes ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Language Input ◽  
Hearing Children

Copious evidence indicates that, even in the first year of life, children’s language development is beginning and is impacted by a wide array of cognitive and social processes. The extent to which these processes are dependent on early language input is a critical concern for most deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children, who, unlike hearing children, are usually not immersed in a language-rich environment until effective interventions, such as hearing aids or cochlear implants, are implemented. Importantly, some cognitive and social processes are not dependent on the early availability of language input and begin to develop before children are fitted for hearing aids or cochlear implants. Interventions involving parent training may be helpful for enhancing social underpinnings of language and for maximizing DHH children’s language learning once effective hearing devices are in place. Similarly, cognitive training for DHH children may also provide benefit to bolster language development.

scholarly journals Review of Bone Conduction Hearing Devices

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-219
Author(s):  
Susan E. Ellsperman ◽  
Emily M. Nairn ◽  
Emily Z. Stucken
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Sound Transmission ◽  
Ear Canal ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Single Sided Deafness

Bone conduction is an efficient pathway of sound transmission which can be harnessed to provide hearing amplification. Bone conduction hearing devices may be indicated when ear canal pathology precludes the use of a conventional hearing aid, as well as in cases of single-sided deafness. Several different technologies exist which transmit sound via bone conduction. Here, we will review the physiology of bone conduction, the indications for bone conduction amplification, and the specifics of currently available devices.

scholarly journals Electroencephalography-Based Auditory Attention Decoding: Toward Neurosteered Hearing Devices

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-102
Author(s):  
Simon Geirnaert ◽  
Servaas Vandecappelle ◽  
Emina Alickovic ◽  
Alain de Cheveigne ◽  
Edmund Lalor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Attention ◽  
Hearing Devices

scholarly journals Successive ipsilateral surgery of Vibrant Soundbridge and Bonebridge devices for congenital bilateral conductive hearing loss: a case report

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 030006052097228
Author(s):  
Yujie Liu ◽  
Ran Ren ◽  
Shouqin Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Vibrant Soundbridge ◽  
Patient’S Experience ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Conductive Hearing ◽  
Subjective Outcomes

The Bonebridge and Vibrant Soundbridge systems are semi-implanted hearing devices, which have been widely applied in patients with congenital conductive hearing loss. However, comparison between these two hearing devices is rare, especially in the same patient. We report a 23-year-old man who underwent successive implantation of Vibrant Soundbridge and Bonebridge devices in the same ear because of dysfunction of the Vibrant Soundbridge. We provide insight on the patient’s experience and compare the audiological and subjective outcomes of satisfaction.

Ultrasound-Guided Placement of Percutaneous Abutments for Bone Conduction Hearing Devices

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph T. Breen ◽  
Marc-Elie Nader ◽  
Paul W. Gidley
Keyword(s):  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing

Differences in Force Levels, Word Recognition in Quiet, Sentence Reception Threshold in Noise, and Subjective Outcomes for a Bone-Anchored Hearing Device Programmed Using Manufacturer First-Fit, Aided Sound-Field Thresholds and Programmed to DSL-BCD Using a Skull Simulator

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (07) ◽  
pp. 395-404
Author(s):  
Adam Voss ◽  
Alison Brockmeyer ◽  
Michael Valente ◽  
John Pumford ◽  
Cameron C. Wick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Subjective Outcomes

Abstract Background Best practice guidelines for verifying fittings of bone-anchored hearing devices (BAHD) recommend using aided sound-field thresholds (ASFT), but express caution regarding the variables impacting obtaining valid and reliable ASFTs.1 Recently, a skull simulator was introduced to facilitate programming BAHD devices in force level (FL) to desired sensation level-bone conduction devices (skull simulator/DSL-BCD)2 3 targets in a hearing aid analyzer. Currently, no evidence is available reporting if differences in measured FL using the manufacturer first-fit (FF) and word recognition in quiet, sentence reception threshold in noise, and subjective outcomes are present for a BAHD programmed using ASFT versus programmed using skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. Purpose The aim of this study was to examine if significant differences were present in FL using the FF and word recognition in quiet at 50 and 65 decibel of sound pressure level (dB SPL), sentence reception threshold in noise and subjective outcomes using the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB), and speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing (SSQ) between a BAHD fit using ASFT or skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. Research Design A double-blind randomized crossover design with 15 adults having unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. All participants were successful users of the Cochlear America Baha 5. Data Collection and Analysis Baha Power 5 devices were fit using FF, ASFT, and skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. Order of the three fitting strategies was randomly assigned and counter-balanced. Results No significant differences were found for a BAHD device programmed using ASFT versus skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets for consonant-nucleus-consonant words in quiet at 50 or 65 dB SPL, sentence reception threshold in noise, the APHAB or SSQ. There were, however, significant differences, at primarily 500 to 2,000 Hz in measured FLs between the FF, ASFT, and skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets at 50 and 65 dB SPL. Conclusions There were no significant differences in subject performance with two speech measures and subjective responses to two questionnaires for BAHD fittings using ASFT versus using skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. Differences in FL between the three fitting strategies were present primarily at 500 to 2,000 Hz. Limitations of the study are highlighted along with situations where the skull simulator can play a significantly beneficial role when fitting BAHD devices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document