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.

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.

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.

Working Memory, Sleep, and Hearing Problems in Patients with Tinnitus and Hearing Loss Fitted with Hearing Aids

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (02) ◽  
pp. 141-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza Zarenoe ◽  
Mathias Hällgren ◽  
Gerhard Andersson ◽  
Torbjörn Ledin
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cognitive Function ◽  
Sleep Quality ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Reading Span ◽  
Full Sample ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Hearing Problems

Background: Tinnitus is a common condition and there is a need to evaluate effects of tinnitus management in relation to moderating factors such as degree of hearing loss. As it is possible that tinnitus influences concentration, and thus is likely to disturb cognitive processing, the role of cognitive functioning also needs to be investigated. Purpose: To compare a group of patients with sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus to a control group with only sensorineural hearing loss (and no tinnitus). To investigate working memory, sleep, and hearing problems measured before and after hearing rehabilitation. Research Design: A prospective study. Study Sample: The sample consisted of 100 patients, 50 with hearing loss and tinnitus, and 50 controls with hearing loss but no tinnitus. All patients were between 40 and 82 yr old and had a pure-tone average (PTA; average of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) <70 dB HL. Intervention: Patients were tested before and after rehabilitation with hearing aids with regard to their working memory capacity, sleep quality, hearing problems, speech recognition, and tinnitus annoyance. Data Collection and Analysis: Eight patients dropped out of the study. Thus, a total of 92 patients were included for analysis, with 46 in each group. As a consequence of unplanned age and PTA differences between the groups, an age-matched subsample (n = 30 + 30) was selected for further analysis. Tests including the Reading Span, Hearing-in-Noise Test (HINT), Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) were administered before and after hearing aid rehabilitation. Results: There were no between-group differences at baseline in the full sample (n = 92), with the exception of the THI (p < 0.001) and the PSQI (p < 0.002), on which the hearing loss and tinnitus group had significantly higher scores. Pre/post changes were significant for both groups on the Reading Span, and HHIE. However, these improvements were significantly larger for the patients in the hearing loss and tinnitus group on the Reading Span test (p < 0.001) and the PSQI (p < 0.001). Patients with tinnitus and hearing loss also exhibited significantly improved THI scores at follow-up, compared to baseline (p < 0.001).We conducted the same analyses for the age-matched subsample (n = 30 + 30). For the baseline data, only the THI (p < 0.001) and the PSQI (p < 0.015) difference remained significant. With regard to the pre/post changes, we found the same differences in improvement in Reading Span (p < 0.001) and the PSQI (p < 0.015) as in the full sample. Conclusions: Patients with tinnitus benefited from hearing aid rehabilitation. The observed differences in cognitive function were unexpected, and there were larger score improvements on the Reading Span test in the hearing loss and tinnitus group than in the hearing loss group. Patients with tinnitus and hearing loss may receive extra benefit in terms of cognitive function following hearing aid rehabilitation.

Toleration of Background Noises

1991 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 679-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Frances M. Tucker ◽  
Tomasz R. Letowski
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Elderly Subjects ◽  
Pneumatic Drill ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Part Time ◽  
Speech Spectrum ◽  
Young Subjects

One of the frequently quoted reasons for the rejection of hearing aids is amplification of background noise. The relationship between hearing aid use and toleration of background noise was assessed. Four groups of elderly subjects (at least 65 years old) and one group of young subjects with normal hearing participated in the study. Each group consisted of 15 subjects. The young subjects and elderly subjects in one group with relatively good hearing were tested for comparison with the hearing-impaired subjects. Elderly subjects in the three remaining groups had acquired hearing losses and had been fitted with hearing aids. The subjects were assigned to three groups on the basis of hearing aid use: full-time users, part-time users, and nonusers. The amount of background noise tolerated when listening to speech was tested. The speech stimulus was a story read by a woman and set at an individually chosen most comfortable level. The maskers were a babble of voices, speech-spectrum noise, traffic noise, music, and the noise of a pneumatic drill. There was a significant interaction between groups and noises. The full-time users tolerated significantly higher levels of music and speech-spectrum noise than part-time users and nonusers. In addition, the full-time users, but not the part-time users, assessed themselves as less handicapped in everyday functions when they wore hearing aids than when they did not wear their hearing aids

The Relationship between the Acceptance of Noise and Acoustic Environments in Young Adults with Normal Hearing: A Pilot Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (06) ◽  
pp. 584-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford A. Franklin ◽  
Letitia J. White ◽  
Thomas C. Franklin ◽  
Laura Smith-Olinde
Keyword(s):  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Directional Microphone ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Acoustic Environments ◽  
Different Characteristics

Background: The acceptable noise level (ANL) indicates how much background noise a listener is willing to accept while listening to speech. The clinical impact and application of the ANL measure is as a predictor of hearing-aid use. The ANL may also correlate with the percentage of time spent in different listening environments (i.e., quiet, noisy, noisy with speech present, etc). Information retrieved from data logging could confirm this relationship. Data logging, using sound scene analysis, is a method of monitoring the different characteristics of the listening environments that a hearing-aid user experiences during a period. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if the ANL procedure reflects the proportion of time a person spends in different acoustic environments. Research Design: This was a descriptive quasi-experimental design to collect pilot data in which participants were asked to maintain their regular, daily activities while wearing a data-logging device. Study Sample: After completing the ANL measurement, 29 normal-hearing listeners were provided a data-logging device and were instructed on its proper use. Data Collection/Analysis: ANL measures were obtained along with the percentage of time participants spent in listening environments classified as quiet, speech-in-quiet, speech-in-noise, and noise via a data-logging device. Results: An analysis of variance using a general linear model indicated that listeners with low ANL values spent more time in acoustic environments in which background noise was present than did those with high ANL values; the ANL data did not indicate differences in how much time listeners spent in environments of differing intensities. Conclusions: To some degree, the ANL is reflective of the acoustic environments and the amount of noise that the listener is willing to accept; data logging illustrates the acoustic environments in which the listener was present. Clinical implications include, but are not limited to, decisions in patient care regarding the need for additional counseling and/or the use of digital noise reduction and directional microphone technology.

scholarly journals Audiological Rehabilitation for Facilitating Hearing Aid Use: A Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (03) ◽  
pp. 248-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hashir Aazh ◽  
Brian C. J. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap

AbstractThis article reviews and critically analyzes the design of studies on the effect of audiological rehabilitation (AR) programs on hearing aid (HA) outcomes, in order to guide future research.The design of this study was a narrative review. Studies were included in the review if they were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of AR on HA use and outcome between 2000 and 2016.Seven articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Most used educational rather than counseling approaches. Although educational AR programs seem to be useful in enhancing the use of communication strategies, there is limited evidence for their effect on HA use and self-perceived hearing handicap.More research is needed in this field. Future studies should (1) investigate the efficacy of AR interventions based on counseling and empathetic listening as opposed to or in addition to educational interventions, (2) use stricter criteria to include only a subpopulation of patients who do not get on well with their HAs, (3) measure the amount of HA use via data-logging and self-report questionnaires, and (4) use a matching comparison intervention for patients in the control group.

Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures Following One Month of Hearing Aid Use by the Elderly

2001 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 469-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Carolyn B. Garner ◽  
Dana L. Wilson ◽  
Nancy N. Barlow
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Class D

This study reports the results of a large number of hearing-aid outcome measures obtained from 173 elderly hearing-aid wearers following one month of hearing-aid use. All participants in this study were fit binaurally with identical full-concha in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aids having linear Class-D amplifiers with output-limiting compression. Outcome measures included several measures of speech recognition, as well as several self-report measures of hearing-aid performance, benefit, satisfaction, and use. Comparison of mean data from this sample of hearing-aid wearers to other larger sets of data, obtained previously for several of these measures of hearing-aid outcome evaluated in isolation, indicated that the participants in this study were representative of the participants in other largerscale studies. Subsequent principal-components factor analysis of the data from this study indicated that there were seven distinct dimensions of hearing-aid outcome. Attempts to document the effectiveness and efficacy of hearing aids for elderly persons with impaired hearing will be most complete when assessing performance along all seven dimensions of hearing-aid outcome. Clinically efficient procedures for doing so are discussed.

Patterns of Hearing Aid Usage Predict Hearing Aid Use Amount (Data Logged and Self-Reported) and Overreport

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (02) ◽  
pp. 187-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariane Laplante-Lévesque ◽  
Claus Nielsen ◽  
Lisbeth Dons Jensen ◽  
Graham Naylor
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Available N ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Usage Patterns ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
The Cost

Background: Previous studies found that, on average, users overreport their daily amount of hearing aid use compared to objective measures such as data logging. However, the reasons for this are unclear. Purpose: This study assessed data-logged and self-reported amount of hearing aid use in a clinical sample of hearing aid users. It identified predictors of data-logged hearing aid use, self-reported hearing aid use, and hearing aid use overreport. Research Design: This observational study recruited adult hearing aid users from 22 private dispensers in the Netherlands and in Denmark. Study Sample: The sample consisted of 228 hearing aid users. Typical participants were over the age of 65 and retired, were fitted binaurally, and had financially contributed to the cost of their hearing aids. Participants had on average a mild-to-severe sloping bilateral hearing impairment. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed a purposefully designed questionnaire regarding hearing aid usage and the International Outcome Inventory—Hearing Aids. Dispensers collected audiometric results and data logging. Multiple linear regression identified predictors of data-logged hearing aid use, self-reported hearing aid use, and hearing aid use overreport when controlling for covariates. Results: Data logging showed on average 10.5 hr of hearing aid use (n = 184), while participants reported on average 11.8 hr of daily hearing aid use (n = 206). In participants for which both data-logged and self-reported hearing aid use data were available (n = 166), the average absolute overreport of daily hearing aid use was 1.2 (1 hr and 11 min). Relative overreport was expressed as a rate of absolute overreport divided by data-logged hearing aid use. A positive rate denotes hearing aid use overreport: the average overreport rate was .38. Cluster analysis identified two data-logged patterns: “Regular,” where hearing aids are typically switched on for between 12 and 20 hr before their user powers them off (57% of the sample), and “On-off,” where hearing aids are typically switched on for shorter periods of time before being powered off (43% of the sample). In terms of self-report, 77% of the sample described their hearing aid use to be the same every day, while 23% of the sample described their hearing aid use to be different from day to day. Participants for whom data logging showed an On-off pattern or who reported their hearing aid use to be different from day to day had significantly fewer data-logged and self-reported hours of hearing aid use. Having an On-off data-logging pattern or describing hearing aid use as the same every day was associated with a significantly greater hearing aid use overreport. Conclusions: Data-logged and self-reported usage patterns significantly predicted data-logged hearing aid use, self-reported hearing aid use, and overreport when controlling for covariates. The results point to patterns of hearing aid usage as being at least as important a concept as amount of hearing aid use. Dispensers should discuss not only the “how much”, but also the “how” of hearing aid usage with their clients.

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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document