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.

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.

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 Psychometric Comparison of the Hearing in Noise Test and the American English Matrix Test

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (04) ◽  
pp. 315-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jumana Harianawala ◽  
Jason Galster ◽  
Benjamin Hornsby
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
American English ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Corpus ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Intensity Functions

AbstractThe hearing in noise test (HINT) is the most popular adaptive test used to evaluate speech in noise performance, especially in context of hearing aid features. However, the number of conditions that can be tested on the HINT is limited by a small speech corpus. The American English Matrix test (AEMT) is a new alternative adaptive speech in noise test with a larger speech corpus. The study examined the relationships between the performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT.To examine whether there was a difference in performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT. A secondary purpose, given the AEMT’s steep performance-intensity function, was to determine whether the AEMT is more sensitive to changes in speech recognition resulting from directional (DIR) microphone processing in hearing aids.A repeated measures design was used in this study. Multiple measurements were made on each subject. Each measurement involved a different experimental condition.Ten adults with hearing loss participated in this study.All participants completed the AEMT and HINT, using adaptive and fixed test formats while wearing hearing aids. Speech recognition was assessed in two hearing aid microphone settings—omnidirectional and fixed DIR. All testing was conducted via sound field presentation. Performance on HINT and AEMT were systematically compared across all test conditions using a linear model with repeated measures.The results of this study revealed that adult hearing aid users perform differently on the HINT and AEMT, with adaptive AEMT testing yielding significantly better (more negative) thresholds than the HINT. Slopes of performance intensity functions obtained by testing at multiple fixed signal-to-noise ratios, revealed a somewhat steeper slope for the HINT compared with the AEMT. Despite this steeper slope, the benefit provided by DIR microphones was not significantly different between the two speech tests.The observation of similar DIR benefits of the HINT and AEMT suggests that the HINT and AEMT are equally sensitive to changes in speech recognition thresholds following intervention. Therefore, the decision to use the AEMT or the HINT will depend on the purpose of the study and/or the technology being investigated. Other test related factors such as available sentence corpus, learning effects and test time will also influence test selection.

scholarly journals Changes in Psychosocial Measures After a 6-Week Field Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Desjardins ◽  
Karen A. Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Field Trial ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Psychosocial Consequences ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
Positive Effect

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which intervention with hearing aids, namely, a 6-week hearing aid field trial, can minimize the psychosocial consequences of hearing loss in adults who have previously not sought treatment for their hearing loss.MethodTwenty-four adults with mild to moderate bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, who had never worn hearing aids or sought help for their hearing loss, participated in this study. Participants were fitted with receiver-in-canal hearing aids, bilaterally, and wore them for 6 weeks. Participants completed subjective measures of hearing handicap and attitudes about hearing loss and hearing aids before, during, and after the hearing aid trial. A control group of age-matched participants followed the same experimental protocol, except they were not fitted with hearing aids.ResultsUsing hearing aids for 6 weeks significantly reduced participants' perceived stigma of hearing aids, personal distress and inadequacy due to hearing difficulties, and hearing handicap.ConclusionsA hearing aid trial can have a positive effect on a person's attitudes toward wearing hearing aids and decrease hearing handicap.

Short-Term and Long-Term Hearing Aid Benefit and User Satisfaction: A Comparison between Two Fitting Protocols

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (06) ◽  
pp. 482-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu-Feng Shi ◽  
Karen A. Doherty ◽  
Tammy M. Kordas ◽  
Joseph T. Pellegrino
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Daily Life ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Currently published hearing aid fitting protocols recommend speech-in-noise testing and loudness measures, but it remains unclear how these measures affect hearing aid benefit and user satisfaction. This study compared two protocols in their effects on benefit and satisfaction. Protocol A included an electroacoustic analysis, real-ear measures, and hearing aid adjustments based on users' comments. Protocol B included all of Protocol A and a speech-in-noise test, loudness discomfort levels, and aided loudness. Thirty-two participants completed the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) at 45 days and three months post–initial fitting. Fewer hearing aid adjustments were made to the hearing aids for participants fitted with Protocol B than participants fitted with Protocol A, but final gains were similar for both groups. Although similar APHAB scores were obtained for both protocols, SADL scores decreased between 45 days and three months for Protocol A. Los protocoles de amplificación de auxiliares auditivo actualmente publicados recomiendan pruebas de lenguaje en ruido y mediciones de apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad (sonoridad), pero no está claro cómo estas mediciones afectan el beneficio de un auxiliar auditivo y la satisfacción del usuario. El estudio comparó dos protocolos en cuanto a sus efectos sobre beneficio y satisfacción. El Protocolo A incluyó un análisis electroacústico, mediciones de oído real y ajuste en el auxiliar auditivo basados en los comentarios del usuario. El Protocolo B incluyó todas las pruebas del Protocolo A, además de una prueba de audición en ruido, de niveles de molestia en la apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad y de sonoridad amplificada. Treinta y dos participantes completaron el Perfil Abreviado de Beneficio del Auxiliar Auditivo (APHAB) y la prueba de Satisfacción con la Amplificación en la Vida Diaria (SADL) a los 45 días y a los tres meses de la adaptación inicial. Tuvieron que hacerse menos ajustes en el audífono en los auxiliares auditivos de participantes adaptados con el Protocolo B, que en los participantes adaptados con el Protocolo A, pero las ganancias finales fueron similares en ambos grupos. Aunque se obtuvieron puntajes APHAB similares en ambos protocolos, los puntajes SADL disminuyeron entre los 45 días y los tres meses para el Protocolo A.

scholarly journals Effects of Wireless Remote Microphone on Speech Recognition in Noise for Hearing Aid Users in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Chen ◽  
Zhe Wang ◽  
Ruijuan Dong ◽  
Xinxing Fu ◽  
Yuan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Test Distance

Objective: This study was aimed at evaluating improvements in speech-in-noise recognition ability as measured by signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) with the use of wireless remote microphone technology. These microphones transmit digital signals via radio frequency directly to hearing aids and may be a valuable assistive listening device for the hearing-impaired population of Mandarin speakers in China.Methods: Twenty-three adults (aged 19–80 years old) and fourteen children (aged 8–17 years old) with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were recruited. The Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test was used to test speech recognition ability in adult subjects, and the Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test for Children was used for children. The subjects’ perceived SNR was measured using sentence recognition ability at three different listening distances of 1.5, 3, and 6 m. At each distance, SNR was obtained under three device settings: hearing aid microphone alone, wireless remote microphone alone, and hearing aid microphone and wireless remote microphone simultaneously.Results: At each test distance, for both adult and pediatric groups, speech-in-noise recognition thresholds were significantly lower with the use of the wireless remote microphone in comparison with the hearing aid microphones alone (P &lt; 0.05), indicating better SNR performance with the wireless remote microphone. Moreover, when the wireless remote microphone was used, test distance had no effect on speech-in-noise recognition for either adults or children.Conclusion: Wireless remote microphone technology can significantly improve speech recognition performance in challenging listening environments for Mandarin speaking hearing aid users in China.

Can a Remotely Delivered Auditory Training Program Improve Speech-in-Noise Understanding?

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey B. Abrams ◽  
Kirsten Bock ◽  
Ryan L. Irey
Keyword(s):  
Training Program ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Auditory Training ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Attractive Alternative ◽  
Time On Task ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Noise Test

PurposeThe aims of this study were to determine if a remotely delivered, Internet-based auditory training (AT) program improved speech-in-noise understanding and if the number of hours spent engaged in the program influenced postintervention speech-in-noise understanding.MethodTwenty-nine first-time hearing aid users were randomized into an AT group (hearing aids + 3 week remotely delivered, Internet-based auditory training program) or a control group (hearing aids alone). The Hearing in Noise Test (Nilsson, Soli, & Sullivan, 1994) and the Words-in-Noise test (Wilson, 2003) were administered to both groups at baseline + 1 week and immediately at the completion of the 3 weeks of auditory training.ResultsSpeech-in-noise understanding improved for both groups at the completion of the study; however, there was not a statistically significant difference in postintervention improvement between the AT and control groups. Although the number of hours the participants engaged in the AT program was far fewer than prescribed, time on task influenced the postintervention Words-in-Noise but not Hearing in Noise Test scores.ConclusionAlthough remotely delivered, Internet-based AT programs represent an attractive alternative to resource-intensive, clinic-based interventions, their demonstrated efficacy continues to remain a challenge due in part to issues associated with compliance.

An Alternate Method for Determining Functional Gain of Hearing Aids

1984 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Rines ◽  
Patricia G. Stelmachowicz ◽  
Michael P. Gorga
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Acoustic Reflex ◽  
Behavioral Threshold ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Behavioral Thresholds ◽  
Acoustic Reflex Threshold ◽  
Functional Gain

The functional gain of a hearing aid typically is determined by comparing aided and unaided behavioral thresholds. With this method, however, true gain may be underestimated in frequency regions of normal or near-normal hearing sensitivity (i.e., in cases of sloping, rising, or trough-shaped audiograms). Internal hearing-aid noise and/or amplified room noise imposes a lower limit on obtainable aided thresholds. In these cases, comparing aided and unaided acoustic-reflex thresholds may be a valuable clinical alternative to traditional means of determining real-ear gain. This study compared sound-field behavioral threshold and acoustic-reflex threshold estimates of functional gain for individuals with a variety of audiometric configurations. The sound-field behavioral threshold measurements were found to underestimate functional gain if unaided thresholds approached the normal hearing range. In regions of greater hearing loss, behavioral and acoustic-reflex estimates of functional gain were in good agreement.

scholarly journals Psychoacoustic Characteristics of Tinnitus versus Temporal Resolution in Subjects with Normal Hearing Sensitivity

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (02) ◽  
pp. 144-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ola Ibraheem ◽  
Mohammad Hassaan
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Resolution ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Auditory Pathway ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Neural Firing ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Test Parameters ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Auditory Temporal Resolution

Introduction Cochlear or neural mechanisms of tinnitus generation may affect auditory temporal resolution in tinnitus patients even with normal audiometry. Thus, studying the correlation between tinnitus characteristics and auditory temporal resolution in subjects with tinnitus may help in proper modification of tinnitus management strategy. Objective This study aims to examine the relationship between the psychoacoustic measures of tinnitus and the auditory temporal resolution in subjects with normal audiometry. Methods Two normal hearing groups with ages ranging from 20 to 45 years were involved: control group of 15 adults (30 ears) without tinnitus and study group of 15 adults (24 ears) with tinnitus. Subjective scaling of annoyance and sleep disturbance caused by tinnitus, basic audiological evaluation, tinnitus psychoacoustic measures and Gaps in Noise test were performed. Data from both groups were compared using independent sample t-test. Psychoacoustic measures of tinnitus and Gaps in Noise test parameters of the tinnitus group were correlated with Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results Significantly higher hearing threshold, higher approximate threshold and lower correct Gaps in Noise scores were observed in tinnitus ears. There was no significant correlation between psychoacoustic measures of tinnitus and Gaps in Noise test parameters of the tinnitus group. Conclusion Auditory temporal resolution impairment was found in tinnitus patients, which could be attributed to cochlear impairment or altered neural firing within the auditory pathway. It is recommended to include temporal resolution testing in the tinnitus evaluation battery to provide a proper management planning.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Short-Term Effects of Complementing an Educational Program for Hearing Aid Users with Telephone Consultations

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 654-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milijana Lundberg ◽  
Gerhard Andersson ◽  
Thomas Lunner
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Educational Program ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Short Term Effects

Background: Audiologic rehabilitation aims to improve communication for people with hearing impairment. Education is widely regarded as an integral part of rehabilitation, but the effect of the delivery method of an educational program on the experience of hearing problems has rarely been investigated in controlled trials. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the short-term effects of complementing an educational program for hearing aid users with telephone consultations, delivered through weekly discussions with the subjects about information obtained from a book on hearing and hearing aids. Research Design: This study used a randomized, controlled design. Study Sample: In total, 69 hearing aid users were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 33) or a control group (n = 36). Intervention: The intervention group had access to a book and received weekly topic-based reading instructions related to the different chapters of the book. Five telephone calls were made to the members of the intervention group. During the calls, an audiologist discussed new information with the participant as needed. The control participants also read the book, but they did not discuss the contents of the book with a professional. Data Collection and Analysis: The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) were used to measure the outcomes of this study. Results: Participants in the intervention group had a reduction in self-reported hearing handicap, while there were no significant changes in the control group. In the intervention group, 45% of the participants showed an improvement of ≥36% on the HHIE, while only 17% of the control group showed an improvement of ≥36%. There were also improvements on the HADS total and the depression subscale for the intervention group. No changes occurred on the IOI-HA. Conclusions: Reading about hearing and hearing aids can reduce the hearing handicap and reported anxiety in hearing aid users. In this study, discussing the content of the book that was provided with a professional during weekly telephone consultations and having weekly home assignments further improved emotional well-being, as demonstrated by the HHIE (emotional scale) and HADS (depression scale), but these activities had no effect on hearing aid outcomes as measured by the IOI-HA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document