Auditory Outcomes with Hearing Rehabilitation in Children with Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 157 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swathi Appachi ◽  
Jessica. L. Specht ◽  
Nikhila Raol ◽  
Judith E. C. Lieu ◽  
Michael S. Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Rehabilitation ◽  
Hearing Devices ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Objective Options for management of unilateral hearing loss (UHL) in children include conventional hearing aids, bone-conduction hearing devices, contralateral routing of signal (CROS) aids, and frequency-modulating (FM) systems. The objective of this study was to systematically review the current literature to characterize auditory outcomes of hearing rehabilitation options in UHL. Data Sources PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2016. Manual searches of bibliographies were also performed. Review Methods Studies analyzing auditory outcomes of hearing amplification in children with UHL were included. Outcome measures included functional and objective auditory results. Two independent reviewers evaluated each abstract and article. Results Of the 249 articles identified, 12 met inclusion criteria. Seven articles solely focused on outcomes with bone-conduction hearing devices. Outcomes favored improved pure-tone averages, speech recognition thresholds, and sound localization in implanted patients. Five studies focused on FM systems, conventional hearing aids, or CROS hearing aids. Limited data are available but suggest a trend toward improvement in speech perception with hearing aids. FM systems were shown to have the most benefit for speech recognition in noise. Studies evaluating CROS hearing aids demonstrated variable outcomes. Conclusions Data evaluating functional and objective auditory measures following hearing amplification in children with UHL are limited. Most studies do suggest improvement in speech perception, speech recognition in noise, and sound localization with a hearing rehabilitation device.

Binaural Application of the Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid

1998 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ad F. M. Snik ◽  
Andy J. Beynon ◽  
Catharina T. M. van der Pouw ◽  
Emmanuel A. M. Mylanus ◽  
Cor W. R. J. Cremers
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Listening Condition ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Listening

Most, but not all, hearing-impaired patients with air conduction hearing aids prefer binaural amplification instead of monaural amplification. The binaural application of the bone conduction hearing aid is more disputable, because the attenuation (in decibels) of sound waves across the skull is so small (10 dB) that even one bone conduction hearing aid will stimulate both cochleas approximately to the same extent. Binaural fitting of the bone-anchored hearing aid was studied in three experienced bone-anchored hearing aid users. The experiments showed that sound localization, and speech recognition in quiet and also under certain noisy conditions improved significantly with binaural listening compared to the monaural listening condition. On the average, the percentage of correct identifications (within 45°) in the sound localization experiment improved by 53% with binaural listening; the speech reception threshold in quiet improved by 4.4 dB. The binaural advantage in the speech-in-noise test was comparable to that of a control group of subjects with normal hearing listening monaurally versus binaurally. The improvements in the scores were ascribed to diotic summation (improved speech recognition in quiet) and the ability to separate sounds in the binaural listening condition (improved sound localization and improved speech recognition in noise whenever the speech and noise signals came from different directions). All three patients preferred the binaural bone-anchored hearing aids and used them all day.

scholarly journals Unilateral hearing loss and the use of hearing aid: speech recognition, benefit, self-perception of functional performance and satisfaction

Revista CEFAC ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidiéli Dalla Costa ◽  
Sinéia Neujahr dos Santos ◽  
Maristela Julio Costa
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Functional Performance ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Sound Amplification

ABSTRACT Purpose: to investigate speech recognition in silence and in noise in subjects with unilateral hearing loss with and without hearing aids, and to analyze the benefit, self-perception of functional performance, satisfaction and the use of hearing aids in these subjects. Methods: eleven adults with unilateral, mixed and sensorineural, mild to severe hearing loss participated in this study. Speech recognition was evaluated by the Brazilian Portuguese sentences lists test; functional performance of the hearing was assessed by using the Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale questionnaire; satisfaction was assessed by the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life questionnaire, both in Brazilian Portuguese; and to assess the use of hearing aids, the patient's report was analyzed. Results: the adaptation of hearing aids provided benefits in speech recognition in all positions evaluated, both in silence and in noise. The subjects did not report major limitations in communication activities with the use of hearing aids. They were satisfied with the use of sound amplification. Most of the subjects did not use hearing aids, effectively. The discontinuity of hearing aids use can be justified by the difficulty on perceiving participation’s restriction caused by hearing loss, as well as the benefit of the hearing aid, besides the concern with batteries’ costs and aesthetic aspects. Conclusion: although showing benefits in speech recognition, in silence and in noise, and satisfaction with sound amplification, most subjects with unilateral hearing loss do not effectively use hearing aids.

Piezoelectric bone conduction hearing implant Osia® - audiological and quality of life benefits

2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Joanna Marszał ◽  
Renata Gibasiewicz ◽  
Magdalena Błaszczyk ◽  
Maria Gawlowska ◽  
Wojciech Gawęcki
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing

Introduction: Nowadays, there are many options to treat hearing-impaired patients: tympanoplastic surgery, hearing aids and a wide range of implantable devices. Objective: The aim of this study is to present the mid-term audiological and quality of life benefits after the implantation of the Osia®, a new active piezoelectric bone conduction hearing implant. Material and methods: The state of the tissues in implanted area, as well as audiological and quality of life results were analyzed six, nine and twelve months after implantation in a group of four adult patients with bilateral mixed hearing loss. Results: In all the cases, no postoperative complications were found. One year after surgery the mean audiological gain in FF PTA4 (pure tone average for 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) was 52.2±3.5 dB in comparison to the unaided situation, the mean speech understanding with Osia® in quiet was 90±8.2% for 50dB SPL, 98.8±2.5% for 65dB SPL and 100±0% for 80dB SPL, and mean speech understanding with Osia® in noise was 37.5%±23.6 for 50dB SPL, 93.8±4.8% for 65dB SPL and 98.8±2.5% for 80dB SPL. There was also an evident improvement in the quality of hearing as well as in the quality of life, measured by the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) and the SSQ (Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale). Conclusions: The Osia® is an effective treatment option for patients with bilateral mixed hearing loss. The mid-term audiological and quality of life results are excellent, but further observations including bigger groups of patients and a longer follow-up are required.

Hearing in Noise With Unilateral Versus Bilateral Bone Conduction Hearing Aids in Adults With Pseudo-conductive Hearing Loss

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-385
Author(s):  
Ohad Hilly ◽  
Meirav Sokolov ◽  
Reut Beck Finkel ◽  
Ofir Zavdy ◽  
Rafael Shemesh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Conductive Hearing

scholarly journals ADHEAR in Conductive Hearing Loss: a case study

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Marques ◽  
A Carvalho ◽  
A Miguéis
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Single Subject ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Middle Ear Cholesteatoma ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Conductive Hearing ◽  
Hearing System

Abstract Introduction Bone conduction hearing systems can be applied through non-invasive devices, using soft bands that exert pressure on the skin, or they can be surgically implanted (Bone Anchored Hearing Aid - BAHA). However, these bone conduction devices are frequently not well accepted due to the pressure on the head. Therefore, a new non-surgical hearing system was developed not to exert pressure on the skin, the ADHEAR. The bone anchorage in ADHEAR is performed through an adhesive adapter and is indicated for patients with conductive hearing loss and normal inner ear function. Objectives Evaluate the audiological performance with the adhesive bone conduction hearing device (ADHEAR) in a patient with conductive hearing loss. Methodology The study was designed as a prospective single-subject repeated-measure study with the subject serving as his own control. A 29 year old female patient who had a primary surgery due to middle ear cholesteatoma, was adapted with unilateral non-invasive adhesive bone conduction system for the treatment of conductive hearing loss. Air and bone conduction thresholds, word recognition scores (WRS) and speech recognition thresholds (SRT) in quiet and noise were assessed to verify the inclusion criteria of the study. Aided and unaided pure tone audiometry at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz in free field and speech audiometry in quiet and noise were performed at baseline and after 4 weeks with the ADHEAR. Results The functional gain with the ADHEAR averaged over 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz after 4 weeks of usage of the adhesive hearing system, improved from 55 dB HL to 31dB HL. Speech perception in quiet and noise improved significantly in the aided situation, with SRT in quiet improving from 60 to 35 dB HL, when compared to the unaided condition. Similar results were found in noise. The patient evaluated the ADHEAR system as being useful, and without complaints of skin pressure. There was no adverse skin reaction. Conclusion Hearing performance was significantly better with ADHEAR under all test conditions. Therefore, this transcutaneous hearing system seems to be an excellent alternative for patients who need a hearing solution for conductive hearing loss but for clinical reasons cannot undergo surgery or conventional hearing aids. Furthermore, it preserves skin over the mastoid and reduces the risk of infection. Otherwise it has benefits verified by absence of head pressure and improvement of patient’s quality of life.

scholarly journals Impact of Unilateral Hearing Loss on Behavioral and Evoked Potential Measures of Auditory Function in Adults

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (07) ◽  
pp. 564-578
Author(s):  
Oscar M. Cañete ◽  
Suzanne C. Purdy ◽  
Colin R. S. Brown ◽  
Michel Neeff ◽  
Peter R. Thorne
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potentials ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Speech Detection

AbstractA unilateral hearing loss (UHL) can have a significant functional and social impact on children and adults, affecting their quality of life. In adults, UHL is typically associated with difficulties understanding speech in noise and sound localization, and UHL increases the self-perception of auditory disability for a range of listening situations. Furthermore, despite evidence for the negative effects of reduced unilateral auditory input on the neural encoding of binaural cues, the perceptual consequences of these changes are still not well understood.Determine effects of UHL on auditory abilities and speech-evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs).CAEPs, sound localization, speech perception in noise and self-perception of auditory abilities (speech, spatial, and qualities hearing scale) were assessed.Thirteen adults with UHL with a range of etiologies, duration of hearing loss, and severity and a control group of eleven binaural listeners with normal hearing.Participants with UHL varied greatly in their ability to localize sound and reported speech recognition and listening effort were the greatest problem. There was a greater effect of right ear than left ear hearing loss on N1 amplitude hemispheric asymmetry and N1 latencies evoked by speech syllables in noise. As duration of hearing loss increased, contralateral dominance (N1 amplitude asymmetry) decreased. N1 amplitudes correlated with speech scores, larger N1 amplitudes were associated with better speech recognition in noise scores. N1 latencies are delayed (in the better ear) and amplitude hemisphere asymmetry differed across UHL participants as function of side of deafness, mainly for right-sided deafness.UHL affects a range of auditory abilities, including speech detection in noise, sound localization, and self-perceived hearing disability. CAEPs elicited by speech sounds are sensitive enough to evidence changes within the auditory cortex due to an UHL.

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.

Comparison of Traditional Bone-Conduction Hearing Aids with the Baha® System

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (04) ◽  
pp. 267-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Christensen ◽  
Laura Smith-Olinde ◽  
Jillian Kimberlain ◽  
Gresham T. Richter ◽  
John L. Dornhoffer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
System Versus ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Bone Conduction Hearing ◽  
Functional Gain ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Background: Little research exists to demonstrate efficacy and verification measures of the Baha® system versus traditional bone-conduction hearing aids. This study gives statistical data about 10 children who have used traditional bone-conduction hearing aids, Baha coupled to a Softband, and the Baha system implanted. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare functional gain at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz for infants and children with bilateral conductive hearing loss who were initially fit with traditional bone-conduction devices then progressed to Baha with Softband and finally to unilateral Baha implants. Research Design: Retrospective five-year chart review. Study Sample: 10 children with bilateral conductive hearing loss due to congenital atresia and/or microtia. Participants ranged in age from 6 mo to 16 yr; three were male and seven were female. Two participants were African-American, five Caucasian, and three Hispanic. Intervention: The intervention was the Baha system used in children via a Softband or implanted as compared to traditional bone-conduction hearing aids. Data Collection and Analysis: Single-factor, repeated analyses of variance were run to examine the amount of functional gain delivered by the various devices as well as the threshold measures with each device at each frequency. Results: Participants in this study showed a statistically significant improvement when using the Baha Softband over traditional bone-conduction hearing aids. An implanted Baha has statistically as much gain as a bone-conduction transducer at all frequencies tested. Conclusions: The Baha system is a valid treatment in conductive hearing loss via a Softband or implanted. It statistically outperforms the traditional bone-conduction hearing aids and should be used as a first choice in intervention rather than a last option for inoperable conductive hearing loss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document