scholarly journals Hearing Aid Use in Older Adults With Postlingual Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew E Hughes ◽  
Joanna Nkyekyer ◽  
Hamish Innes-Brown ◽  
Susan L Rossell ◽  
David Sly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Psychosocial Factors ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Processing ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Training Centre ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

BACKGROUND Older adults with postlingual sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) exhibit a poor prognosis that not only includes impaired auditory function but also rapid cognitive decline, especially speech-related cognition, in addition to psychosocial dysfunction and an increased risk of dementia. Consistent with this prognosis, individuals with SNHL exhibit global atrophic brain alteration as well as altered neural function and regional brain organization within the cortical substrates that underlie auditory and speech processing. Recent evidence suggests that the use of hearing aids might ameliorate this prognosis. OBJECTIVE The objective was to study the effects of a hearing aid use intervention on neurocognitive and psychosocial functioning in individuals with SNHL aged ≥55 years. METHODS All aspects of this study will be conducted at Swinburne University of Technology (Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia). We will recruit 2 groups (n=30 per group) of individuals with mild to moderate SNHL from both the community and audiology health clinics (Alison Hennessy Audiology, Chelsea Hearing Pty Ltd). These groups will include individuals who have worn a hearing aid for, at least, 12 months or never worn a hearing aid. All participants would be asked to complete, at 2 time points (t) including baseline (t=0) and follow-up (t=6 months), tests of hearing and psychosocial and cognitive function and attend a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) session. The MRI session will include both structural and functional MRI (sMRI and fMRI) scans, the latter involving the performance of a novel speech processing task. RESULTS This research is funded by the Barbara Dicker Brain Sciences Foundation Grants, the Australian Research Council, Alison Hennessy Audiology, and Chelsea Hearing Pty Ltd under the Industry Transformation Training Centre Scheme (ARC Project #IC140100023). We obtained the ethics approval on November 18, 2017 (Swinburne University Human Research Ethics Committee protocol number SHR Project 2017/266). The recruitment began in December 2017 and will be completed by December 2020. CONCLUSIONS This is the first study to assess the effect hearing aid use has on neural, cognitive, and psychosocial factors in individuals with SNHL who have never used hearing aids. Furthermore, this study is expected to clarify the relationships among altered brain structure and function, psychosocial factors, and cognition in response to the hearing aid use. CLINICALTRIAL Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12617001616369; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12617001616369 (Accessed by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/70yatZ9ze) INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR RR1-10.2196/9916

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).

Temporary Increase in Sensorineural Hearing Loss with Hearing Aid Use

1979 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Patricia Heffernan ◽  
Marsha R. Simons
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Temporary Increase ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Power Outputs

Two cases are presented exhibiting temporary increases in sensorineural hearing loss following hearing aid use. Data suggesting this correlation are shown. There were no contributing middle ear problems during the period surveyed. The most significant changes in hearing thresholds were at frequencies 1000 and 2000 Hz. The use of different hearing aids, with decreased maximum power outputs, was not found to have similar effects on hearing threshold levels. A scheduling regime is recommended for introducing any new hearing aid to a child.

Temporary and Permanent Threshold Shift Caused by Hearing Aid Use

1995 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 949-959 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Macrae
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Threshold Shift ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Sound Levels ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Good Agreement

Excessive amplification by hearing aids causes temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift (PTS). This investigation addressed the question whether it might be possible to predict the eventual amount of PTS caused by excessive amplification from the amount of TTS it causes after a day of hearing aid use. Asymptotic TTS (ATS) to be expected as a result of hearing aid use was predicted for 8 children with sensorineural hearing loss and the predicted ATS was compared with observed permanent deterioration of their thresholds attributed to hearing aid use. There was good agreement between the predicted ATS and observed PTS at 500 to 2000 Hz. It follows that, for prediction of PTS caused by hearing aid use, the mean of the sound levels produced in the ear by the hearing aid is the correct equivalent continuous level (ECL) to use and that the Modified Power Law (MPL) is the appropriate method of adjusting the predictions for sensorineural hearing loss, because these have been shown to be appropriate for prediction of TTS caused by hearing aid use. Predictions of the PTS to be expected for the children that were carried out using the MPL and the mean level as the ECL were in good agreement with the observed PTS at 500 to 2000 Hz, whereas predictions of PTS based on an alternative method of correction for sensorineural hearing loss (the Continuation Hypothesis) were significantly less than the observed amounts. The results of the PTS predictions therefore confirmed the conclusions drawn from the results of the ATS predictions.

scholarly journals Hearing Aid Use in Older Adults With Postlingual Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew E Hughes ◽  
Joanna Nkyekyer ◽  
Hamish Innes-Brown ◽  
Susan L Rossell ◽  
David Sly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
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.

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.

scholarly journals Socioeconomic differences in hearing among middle-aged and older adults: cross-sectional analyses using the Health Survey for England

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e019615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaun Scholes ◽  
Jane Biddulph ◽  
Adrian Davis ◽  
Jennifer S. Mindell
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Health Survey ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Middle Aged ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Health Survey For England

BackgroundHearing loss impacts on cognitive, social and physical functioning. Both hearing loss and hearing aid use vary across population subgroups. We examined whether hearing loss, and reported current hearing aid use among persons with hearing loss, were associated with different markers of socioeconomic status (SES) in a nationally representative sample of community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults.MethodsHearing was measured using an audiometric screening device in the Health Survey for England 2014 (3292 participants aged 45 years and over). Hearing loss was defined as >35 dB HL at 3.0 kHz in the better-hearing ear. Using sex-specific logistic regression modelling, we evaluated the associations between SES and hearing after adjustment for potential confounders.Results26% of men and 20% of women aged 45 years and over had hearing loss. Hearing loss was higher among men in the lowest SES groups. For example, the multivariable-adjusted odds of hearing loss were almost two times as high for those in the lowest versus the highest income tertile (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.74). Among those with hearing loss, 30% of men and 27% of women were currently using a hearing aid. Compared with men in the highest income tertile, the multivariable-adjusted odds of using a hearing aid nowadays were lower for men in the middle (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99) and the lowest (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97) income tertiles. Associations between SES and hearing were weaker or null among women.ConclusionsWhile the burden of hearing loss fell highest among men in the lowest SES groups, current hearing aid use was demonstrably lower. Initiatives to detect hearing loss early and increase the uptake and the use of hearing aids may provide substantial public health benefits and reduce socioeconomic inequalities in health.

Evaluation of Hardwire Personal Assistive Listening Devices

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Dempsey ◽  
Mark Ross
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Frequency Responses ◽  
Subjective Evaluations ◽  
Potential Benefits

A large number of personal amplifiers have recently become available commercially. These devices have not been classified as hearing aids by the FDA and are therefore not subject to the FDA rules and regulations governing the sales of hearing aid devices. In this investigation, several of these personal amplifiers were evaluated to determine potential benefits and problems for each device. The devices were evaluated electroacoustically and, also, subjectively by a group of adults with sensorineural hearing loss. The results of the electroacoustic evaluation revealed very sharply peaked frequency responses. The subjective evaluations revealed tremendous variability, with some preferences for power and low-frequency amplification. Clinical implications of these results and suggestions for further research are provided.

Bone-anchored hearing aids and unilateral sensorineural hearing loss: why do patients reject them?

2015 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Siau ◽  
B Dhillon ◽  
R Andrews ◽  
K M J Green
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Uptake Rate ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Sensorineural Deafness ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Device Implantation ◽  
Bone Anchored Hearing Aid

AbstractObjectives:This study aimed to report the bone-anchored hearing aid uptake and the reasons for their rejection by unilateral sensorineural deafness patients.Methods:A retrospective review of 90 consecutive unilateral sensorineural deafness patients referred to the Greater Manchester Bone-Anchored Hearing Aid Programme between September 2008 and August 2011 was performed.Results:In all, 79 (87.8 per cent) were deemed audiologically suitable: 24 (30.3 per cent) eventually had a bone-anchored hearing aid implanted and 55 (69.6 per cent) patients declined. Of those who declined, 26 (47.3 per cent) cited perceived limited benefits, 18 (32.7 per cent) cited reservations regarding surgery, 13 (23.6 per cent) preferred a wireless contralateral routing of sound device and 12 (21.8 per cent) cited cosmetic reasons. In all, 32 (40.5 per cent) suitable patients eventually chose the wireless contralateral routing of sound device.Conclusion:The uptake rate was 30 per cent for audiologically suitable patients. Almost half of suitable patients did not perceive a sufficient benefit to proceed to device implantation and a significant proportion rejected it. It is therefore important that clinicians do not to rush to implant all unilateral sensorineural hearing loss patients with a bone-anchored hearing aid.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document