scholarly journals The Ear–Brain Connection: Older Ears and Older Brains

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly L. Tremblay
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Biological Effects ◽  
Biological Aging ◽  
Auditory Rehabilitation ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Brain Connection ◽  
The Brain

Purpose The purpose of this article is to review recent research from our laboratory on the topic of aging, and the ear–brain system, as it relates to hearing aid use and auditory rehabilitation. The material described here was presented as part of the forum on the brain and hearing aids, at the 2014 HEaling Across the Lifespan (HEAL) conference. Method The method involves a narrative review of previously reported electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) data from our laboratory as they relate to the (a) neural detection of amplified sound and (b) ability to learn new sound contrasts. Conclusions Results from our studies add to the mounting evidence that there are central effects of biological aging as well as peripheral pathology that affect a person's neural detection and use of sound. What is more, these biological effects can be seen as early as middle age. The accruing evidence has implications for hearing aid use because effective communication relies not only on sufficient detection of sound but also on the individual's ability to learn to make use of these sounds in ever-changing listening environments.

Use of a Mild-Gain Hearing Aid by Middle-Age Normal-Hearing Adults Who Do and Do Not Self-Report Trouble Hearing in Background Noise

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-428
Author(s):  
Jasleen Singh ◽  
Karen A. Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Hearing Problems

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.

Noise Exposure Associated With Hearing Aid Use in Industry

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Dolan ◽  
James F. Maurer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
High Gain ◽  
Sound Level ◽  
Weighted Averages ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Level Meter

Although noise may be innocuous in many vocational environments, there is a growing concern in industry that it can reach hazardous levels when amplified by hearing aids. This study examined the daily noise exposures associated with hearing aid use in industry. This was done by both laboratory and site measurements in which hearing aids were coupled to the microphone of an integrating sound level meter or dosimeter. The former method involved the use of recorded railroad and manufacturing noise and a Bruel and Kjaer 4128 Head and Torso simulator. In the latter procedure, a worker wore one of three hearing aids coupled to a dosimeter during 8-hour shifts in a manufacturing plant. Both methods demonstrated that even when amplified by mild-gain hearing aids, noise exposures rose from time-weighted averages near 80 dBA to well above the OSHA maximum of 90 dBA. The OSHA maximum was also exceeded when moderate and high gain instruments were worn in non-occupational listening environments. The results suggest that current OSHA regulations that limit noise exposure in sound field are inappropriate for hearing aid users.

Using Trainable Hearing Aids to Examine Real-World Preferred Gain

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 758-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Gustav Mueller ◽  
Benjamin W.Y. Hornsby ◽  
Jennifer E. Weber
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Real World ◽  
Field Trial ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Volume Control ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Few Data

Background: While there have been many studies of real-world preferred hearing aid gain, few data are available from participants using hearing aids with today's special features activated. Moreover, only limited data have been collected regarding preferred gain for individuals using trainable hearing aids. Purpose: To determine whether real-world preferred hearing aid gain with trainable modern hearing aids is in agreement with previous work in this area, and to determine whether the starting programmed gain setting influences preferred gain outcome. Research Design: An experimental crossover study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. Following initial treatment, each subject crossed to the opposite group and experienced that treatment. Study Sample: Twenty-two adults with downward sloping sensorineural hearing loss served as participants (mean age 64.5; 16 males, 6 females). All were experienced users of bilateral amplification. Intervention: Using a crossover design, participants were fitted to two different prescriptive gain conditions: VC (volume control) start-up 6 dB above NAL-NL1 (National Acoustic Laboratories—Non-linear 1) target or VC start-up 6 dB below NAL-NL1 target. The hearing aids were used in a 10 to 14 day field trial for each condition, and using the VC, the participants could “train” the overall hearing aid gain to their preferred level. During the field trial, daily hearing aid use was logged, as well as the listening situations experienced by the listeners based on the hearing instrument's acoustic scene analysis. The participants completed a questionnaire at the start and end of each field trial in which they rated loudness perceptions and their satisfaction with aided loudness levels. Results: Because several participants potentially experienced floor or ceiling effects for the range of trainable gain, the majority of the statistical analysis was conducted using 12 of the 22 participants. For both VC-start conditions, the trained preferred gain differed significantly from the NAL-NL1 prescriptive targets. More importantly, the initial start-up gain significantly influenced the trained gain; the mean preferred gain for the +6 dB start condition was approximately 9 dB higher than the preferred gain for the −6 dB start condition, and this difference was statistically significant (p < .001). Partial eta squared (η2) = 0.919, which is a large effect size.Deviation from the NAL-NL1 target was not significantly influenced by the time spent in different listening environments, amount of hearing aid use during the trial period, or amount of hearing loss. Questionnaire data showed more appropriate ratings for loudness and higher satisfaction with loudness for the 6 dB below target VC-start condition. Conclusions: When trainable hearing aids are used, the initial programmed gain of hearing instruments can influence preferred gain in the real world.

Hearing Aid Use with Minimal High-Frequency Hearing Loss

1989 ◽  
Vol 100 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carissa D. Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Social Situations ◽  
High Frequency Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Worthwhile Investment

This Study evaluated the use of hearing aids by patients with hearing threshold levels of 20 dB or less at 500 and 1000 Hz and 35 dB or less at 2000 Hz. Ninety-eight patients completed a 30-day trial with amplification. Six months later, patients were interviewed by telephone and questioned on hearing aid use and perceived unaided and aided difficulty in various listening environments. Results of the study demonstrated that patients with minimal high-frequency hearing loss can benefit from the use of hearing aids. Ninety-two percent of the patients elected to purchase the hearing aids and 85% considered the aids a worthwhile investment after 6 months of use. Patients showed a mean improvement from moderate unaided to slight aided difficulty at work and in general social situations. The only variable that predicted success with hearing aids was degree of unaided difficulty at work. Patients who perceived less unaided difficulty at work were less likely to obtain benefit from the use of the hearing aids.

Hearing Technology Use and Management in School-Age Children: Reports from Data Logs, Parents, and Teachers

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 883-892 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha J. Gustafson ◽  
Todd A. Ricketts ◽  
Anne Marie Tharpe
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Parent Report ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
System Use ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Background: Consistency of hearing aid and remote microphone system use declines as school-age children with hearing loss age. One indicator of hearing aid use time is data logging, another is parent report. Recent data suggest that parents overestimate their children’s hearing aid use time relative to data logging. The potential reasons for this disparity remain unclear. Because school-age children spend the majority of their day away from their parents and with their teachers, reports from teachers might serve as a valuable and additional tool for estimating hearing aid use time and management. Purpose: This study expands previous research on factors influencing hearing aid use time in school-age children using data logging records. Discrepancies between data logging records and parent reports were explored using custom surveys designed for parents and teachers. Responses from parents and teachers were used to examine hearing aid use, remote microphone system use, and hearing aid management in school-age children. Study Sample: Thirteen children with mild-to-moderate hearing loss between the ages of 7 and 10 yr and their parents participated in this study. Teachers of ten of these children also participated. Data Collection and Analysis: Parents and teachers of children completed written surveys about each child’s hearing aid use, remote microphone system use, and hearing aid management skills. Data logs were read from hearing aids using manufacturer’s software. Multiple linear regression analysis and an intraclass correlation coefficient were used to examine factors influencing hearing aid use time and parent agreement with data logs. Parent report of hearing aid use time was compared across various activities and school and nonschool days. Survey responses from parents and teachers were compared to explore areas requiring potential improvement in audiological counseling. Results: Average daily hearing aid use time was ˜6 hr per day as recorded with data logging technology. Children exhibiting greater degrees of hearing loss and those with poorer vocabulary were more likely to use hearing aids consistently than children with less hearing loss and better vocabulary. Parents overestimated hearing aid use by ˜1 hr per day relative to data logging records. Parent-reported use of hearing aids varied across activities but not across school and nonschool days. Overall, parents and teachers showed excellent agreement on hearing aid and remote microphone system use during school instruction but poor agreement when asked about the child’s ability to manage their hearing devices independently. Conclusions: Parental reports of hearing aid use in young school-age children are largely consistent with data logging records and with teacher reports of hearing aid use in the classroom. Audiologists might find teacher reports helpful in learning more about children’s hearing aid management and remote microphone system use during their time at school. This supplementary information can serve as an additional counseling tool to facilitate discussion about remote microphone system use and hearing aid management in school-age children with hearing loss.

Reliability and Stability of Various Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures in a Group of Elderly Hearing-Aid Wearers

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 923-935 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Dan Halling ◽  
Maureen Coughlin
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Nonsense Syllable ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Objective Measure ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap

Twenty elderly persons with hearing impairment were fit with binaural in-the-ear hearing aids and followed for a 6-month period post-fit. Several hearing-aid outcome measures were obtained at 0, 7, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 180 days post-fit. Outcome measures included (a) objective measures of benefit obtained with nonsense-syllable materials in quiet (CUNY Nonsense Syllable Test, NST) and sentences in multitalker babble (Hearing in Noise Test, HINT); (b) two subjective measures of benefit, one derived from pre-fit/post-fit comparisons on a general scale of hearing handicap (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, HHIE) and the other based on a subjective scale of post-fit hearing-aid benefit (Hearing Aid Performance Inventory, HAPI); (c) a questionnaire on hearing-aid satisfaction; (d) an objective measure of hearing-aid use; and (e) a subjective measure of hearing-aid use. Reliability and stability of each measure were examined through repeated-measures analyses of variance, a series of test-retest correlations, and, where possible, scatterplots of the scores against their corresponding 95% critical differences. Many of the measures were found to be both reliable and stable indicators of hearing-aid outcome.

scholarly journals Factors Influencing Help Seeking, Hearing Aid Uptake, Hearing Aid Use and Satisfaction With Hearing Aids: A Review of the Literature

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 127-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Line Vestergaard Knudsen ◽  
Marie Öberg ◽  
Claus Nielsen ◽  
Graham Naylor ◽  
Sophia E. Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Help Seeking ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

Hearing Loss, Control, and Demographic Factors Influencing Hearing Aid Use Among Older Adults

1998 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 527-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean C. Garstecki ◽  
Susan F. Erler
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Psychological Control ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Demographic Factors ◽  
Ego Strength ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap

Preference for non-use of hearing aids among older adults who are candidates for amplification remains to be explained. Clinical studies have examined the contribution of consumer attitudes, behaviors, and life circumstances to this phenomenon. The present study extends the interests of earlier investigators in that it examines psychological control tendencies in combination with hearing loss and demographic variables among older adults who elected to accept (adherents) or ignore (nonadherents) advice from hearing professionals to acquire and use hearing aids. One hundred thirty-one individuals participated by completing measures of hearing, hearing handicap, psychological control, depression, and ego strength. Participants were asked to provide demographic information and personal opinions regarding hearing aid use. Adherence group and gender differences were noted on measures of hearing sensitivity, psychological control, and demographic factors. Female adherents demonstrated greater hearing loss and poorer word recognition ability but less hearing handicap, higher internal locus of control, higher ego strength, and fewer depressive tendencies than female nonadherents. They reported demographic advantages. Female adherents assumed responsibility for effective communication. Although male adherents and nonadherents did not differ significantly demographically, male adherents were more accepting of their hearing loss, took responsibility for communication problems, and found hearing aids less stigmatizing. Implications for clinical practice and future clinical investigations are identified and discussed. Results are expected to be of interest to clinicians, clinical investigators, and health care policymakers.

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).

Findings From EuroTrak Surveys From 2009 to 2015: Hearing Loss Prevalence, Hearing Aid Adoption, and Benefits of Hearing Aid Use

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (3S) ◽  
pp. 451-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolai Bisgaard ◽  
Stefan Ruf
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Use Patterns ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Product Features ◽  
Hearing Status ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Analyze Data

Purpose The purpose of this study was to analyze data from the EuroTrak surveys performed from 2009 to 2015 in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom to identify factors that could account for the growth in hearing aid sales over that period. Method Data of 132,028 people—approximately 15,000 for each of the 3 countries at 3-year intervals—were collected using a questionnaire. The sample in each country was weighted using the respective country age–gender populations to get balanced results. Furthermore, 11,867 persons with self-reported hearing impairment filled in a comprehensive questionnaire on hearing status and related matters; 4,631 were hearing aid owners. Data were pooled over the 3 countries for each of the years 2009, 2012, and 2015 and analyzed for developments over the 6-year period. In certain cases, data were pooled across countries and years. The analysis focused on hearing loss prevalence, hearing aid adoption rates, satisfaction with hearing aids, and benefits of hearing aid use. Results Hearing loss prevalence was stable over the period around 10%—slightly higher for men than for women. Hearing aid adoption overall increased from 33% to 37%, and bilateral use increased from 55% to 69%. Intervals between hearing aid renewals decreased. These factors contribute to increased hearing aid sales. Bilateral users are more satisfied with the hearing aid product features (76%) and performance (72%) and use their hearing aids 9.1 hr per day, compared with unilateral users where the corresponding numbers are 71%, 67%, and 7.8 hr, respectively. Satisfaction with hearing aid product features and performance in general is slightly increasing; hearing aid users are 14.5% less exhausted at the end of the day compared with nonusers with similar hearing loss and exhibit less depressive and forgetfulness symptoms. Conclusions The prevalence of self-reported hearing loss is 10.6% and stable, and hearing aid adoption has increased, particularly of bilateral fittings that are more satisfactory and exhibit higher daily use patterns. Higher uptake of hearing aids contributes to growing hearing aid sales.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document