scholarly journals ENG in a Dizzy Patient with Binaural Hearing Loss following Surgery for Ménière's Syndrome

2004 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-21
Author(s):  
Kenneth H. Brookler
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Dizzy Patient

Outcomes of Hearing Aid Use by Individuals with Unilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss (USNHL)

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 941-949 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles E. Bishop ◽  
Elgenaid Hamadain ◽  
Jason A. Galster ◽  
Mary Frances Johnson ◽  
Christopher Spankovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

Background: Unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL) can have a negative impact on functions associated with the advantages of balanced, binaural hearing. Although single-sided deafness, which is a complete loss of audibility in one ear, has gained increased interest in the published research, there is a gap in the literature concerning hearing aid outcomes for individuals with residual, or otherwise “aidable,” hearing in the affected ear. Purpose: To assess hearing aid outcomes for a group of individuals with USNHL with residual, aidable function. Research Design: A quasi-experimental study of hearing aid outcomes with paired comparisons made between unaided and aided test conditions. Study Sample: A convenience sample of twenty-two individuals with USNHL, with sufficient residual hearing in the affected ear as to receive audibility from use of a hearing aid, were recruited into the study from September 2011 to August 2012. Intervention: Each participant was fit with a digital behind-the-ear hearing aid coupled to a custom ear mold. Data Collection and Analysis: Assessments were performed at baseline (unaided) and after a three-month field trial (aided) with primary outcomes involving objective measures in sound field yielding signal-to-noise ratio loss (SNR Loss) via the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test and word recognition scores (WRS) via the Northwestern University Auditory Test, No. 6. Outcomes also involved the administration of two well-established subjective benefit questionnaires: The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the 49-item Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ49). Results: As a group, participants showed significantly improved median SNR Loss thresholds when aided in a test condition that included spatial separation of speech and noise, with speech stimuli directed toward the worse ear and noise stimuli directed toward the better ear (diff. = −4.5; p < 0.001). Hearing aid use had a small, though statistically significant, negative impact on median SNR Loss thresholds, when speech and noise stimuli originated from the same 0° azimuth (diff. = 1.0; p = 0.018). This was also evidenced by the median WRS in sound field (diff. = −6.0; p = 0.006), which was lowered from 98% in the unaided state to 92% in the aided state. Results from the SSQ49 showed statistically significant improvement on all subsection means when participants were aided (p < 0.05), whereas results from the APHAB were generally found to be unremarkable between unaided and aided conditions as benefit was essentially equal to the 50th percentile of the normative data. At the close of the study, it was observed that only slightly more than half of all participants chose to continue use of a hearing aid after their participation. Conclusions: We observed that hearing aid use by individuals with USNHL can improve the SNR Loss associated with the interference of background noise, especially in situations when there is spatial separation of the stimuli and speech is directed toward the affected ear. In addition, hearing aid use by these individuals can provide subjective benefit, as evidenced by the APHAB and SSQ49 subjective benefit questionnaires.

The Effects of Changes in Head Angle on Auditory and Visual Input for Omnidirectional and Directional Microphone Hearing Aids

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Henry ◽  
Todd Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Visual Cues ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Increase Signal Intensity ◽  
Visual Mode

Improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for individuals with hearing loss who are listening to speech in noise provides an obvious benefit. Although binaural hearing provides the greatest advantage over monaural hearing in noise, some individuals with symmetrical hearing loss choose to wear only one hearing aid. The present study tested the hypothesis that individuals with symmetrical hearing loss fit with one hearing aid would demonstrate improved speech recognition in background noise with increases in head turn. Fourteen individuals were fit monaurally with a Starkey Gemini in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid with directional and omnidirectional microphone modes. Speech recognition performance in noise was tested using the audiovisual version of the Connected Speech Test (CST v.3). The test was administered in auditory-only conditions as well as with the addition of visual cues for each of three head angles: 0°, 20°, and 40°. Results indicated improvement in speech recognition performance with changes in head angle for the auditory-only presentation mode at the 20° and 40° head angles when compared to 0°. Improvement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 20° head angle when compared to 0°. Additionally, a decrement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 40° head angle when compared to 0°. These results support a speech recognition advantage for listeners fit with one ITE hearing aid listening in a close listener-to-speaker distance when they turn their head slightly in order to increase signal intensity.

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.

scholarly journals Audiological Performance of ADHEAR Systems in Simulated Conductive Hearing Loss: A Case Series with a Review of the Existing Literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 537-546
Author(s):  
Enrico Muzzi ◽  
Valeria Gambacorta ◽  
Ruggero Lapenna ◽  
Giulia Pizzamiglio ◽  
Sara Ghiselli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Implant ◽  
Conductive Hearing ◽  
Loudness Summation

A new non-invasive adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ABCD) has been proposed as an alternative solution for reversible bilateral conductive hearing loss in recurrent or long-lasting forms of otitis media with effusion (OME) in children that cannot undergo surgical treatment. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of ABCD in children with OME. Twelve normal-hearing Italian-speaking volunteers, in whom a conductive hearing loss was simulated, participated in the study. The free-field average hearing threshold was determined and, to evaluate binaural hearing skills, loudness summation and the squelch effect were assessed. Five conditions were tested: (1) unaided without earplugs, (2) unaided with bilateral earplugs, (3) aided right ear with bilateral earplugs, (4) aided left ear with bilateral earplugs, and (5) bilateral aid with bilateral earplugs. Post-hoc analysis showed a significant statistical difference between plugged, unplugged, and each aided condition. The main results were a better loudness summation and a substantial improvement of the squelch effect in the bilaterally aided. Our results suggest that ABCD is a valid treatment for patients with conductive hearing loss that cannot undergo bone conduction implant surgery. It is also important to consider bilateral aids in order to deal with situations in which binaural hearing is fundamental.

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.

scholarly journals Effects of Cochlear Implantation on Binaural Hearing in Adults With Unilateral Hearing Loss

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 233121651877117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Buss ◽  
Margaret T. Dillon ◽  
Meredith A. Rooth ◽  
English R. King ◽  
Ellen J. Deres ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss

Effect of Conductive Hearing Loss and Middle Ear Surgery on Binaural Hearing

1986 ◽  
Vol 95 (5) ◽  
pp. 525-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph W. Hall ◽  
Eugene L. Derlacki
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Middle Ear Surgery ◽  
Ear Surgery ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Masking Level Difference ◽  
Conductive Hearing

This study investigated whether conductive hearing loss reduces normal binaural hearing advantages and whether binaural hearing advantages are normal in patients who have had hearing thresholds improved by middle ear surgery. Binaural hearing was assessed at a test frequency of 500 Hz using the masking level difference and interaural time discrimination thresholds. Results indicated that binaural hearing is often poor in conductive lesion patients and that the reduction in binaural hearing is not always consistent with a simple attenuation of the acoustic signal. Poor binaural hearing sometimes occurs even when middle ear surgery has resulted in bilaterally normal hearing thresholds. Our preliminary results are consistent with the interpretation that auditory deprivation due to conductive hearing loss may result in poor binaural auditory processing.

Qualification of unilateral cochlear implant recipients for a second device

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 8-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Drela ◽  
Karolina Haber ◽  
Iwona Wrukowska ◽  
Michael Puricelli ◽  
Anna Sinkiewicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Speech Development ◽  
Vestibular Organ ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Effective Use

Introduction: Although it is recommended to perform cochlear implantation in both ears at the same time for management of profound hearing loss in children, many centers prefer to perform sequential implantation. There are many reasons as to why a simultaneous bilateral implantation is not commonly accepted and performed. The major risk is the possibility of bilateral vestibular organ impairment. However, it is beyond doubt that children who received the first implant should be given a chance for binaural hearing and associated benefits. In the literature, there are no homogenous criteria for bilateral implantation, and it is hard to find uniform and convincing algorithms for second cochlear implantation. The aim of this study is an attempt to identify a safe way of qualifying for second cochlear implantation in children. Material and methods: Forty children with one cochlear implant were qualified for the second implantation. During qualification, the following were taken into account: time of the first implantation, audiometry results, use of the hearing aid in the ear without an implant and benefit of the device, speech and hearing development, and vestibular organ function. R esults: Fifteen out of forty children (38%) were qualified for the second implantation. In 35% of children, the decision was delayed with possible second implantation in the future. Eleven children (27%) were disqualified from the second surgery. Discussion: During evaluation according to the protocol presented in our study, 38% of children with a single cochlear implant were qualified for the second implantation with a chance for an optimal development and effective use of the second cochlear implant. We are convinced that sequential implantation with a short interval between surgeries and with an examination of the vestibular organ, hearing and speech development as well as an assessment of potential benefits from the second implant (bimodal stimulation) before the second implantation is the safest and most beneficial solution for children with severe hearing loss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document