Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “HEARING”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

[Active electronic hearing implants for middle and inner ear hearing loss--a new era in ear surgery. III: prospects for inner ear hearing loss].

The perspectives for active hearing implants lie in the treatment of patients with sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). The majority of patients with SNHL suffer from a cochlea amplifier (CA) failure which is discernible by a positive recruitment and loss of otoacoustic emissions (OAE). Therefore, the electronic implant is expected to partially replace functions of the CA. Thus, the implant is thought to function as a CAI (cochlea amplifier implant). An approved implant for routine use is not yet available. Clinical studies have thus far only used the high energy consuming (HEC), narrow-band, electromagnetic floating-mass transducer, as well as the Maniglia-HEC implant. The high energie consuming, yet broadband Canadian Fredrickson implant is soon to be used in humans. Of the piezoelectrical implants, a German CAI (Tübingen implant) at present consisting of a piezoelectrical transducer and a microphone has thus far been acutely implanted in first patient. It is a low energy consuming (LEC), broad-band implantable system for patients with sensorineural hearing loss. Routine surgical treatment of patients with sensorineural hearing loss with a CAI will only be achieved if complete implants (with transducer, microphones, batteries, and control unit) are made available. They combine distinct acoustic superiority with invisibility (end of stigmatization), an open ear canal, and hopefully, the end of feedback whistling. Among the implants mentioned, the German CAI is the only LEC implant. Its energy requirements are so low that with today's technologie implantable batteries (e.g., in pacemakers), the additional implantation of an energy carrier seems feasible. Since the implantable microphone is already available in the German system, the only essential part missing for a totally implantable CAI is the implantable control unit.

Cochlear Implants↗

Hearing impairment, social networks, and coping: the need for families with hearing-impaired children to relate to other parents and to hearing-impaired adults.

For a report on the stress experiences of parents with hearing-impaired children in Germany, 317 parents completed a survey on how their families communicate and socialize, among other issues. The report focuses on how contacts with other parents and with hearing-impaired adults affect stress experiences, in the context of the child's hearing status and the means of communication. Parents who frequently meet with other parents show evidence of a warm, accepting, trusting relationship with their child. Parents who have many contacts with hearing-impaired adults show evidence of a strong sense of competence in regard to their child's upbringing. The findings confirm the implication found in most reports describing empirical studies. Social support is to be regarded as a cornerstone of psychosocial intervention and has to play as great a role as possible in institutional programs.

Adaptation, Psychological↗

When is a conductive hearing loss not a conductive hearing loss? Causes of a mismatch in air-bone threshold measurements or a "pseudoconductive" hearing loss.

The otolaryngologist is sometimes faced with a patient with an apparent conductive hearing loss on audiometric testing who appears to have normal and mobile middle ear structures on ear exploration. Some causes of these "pseudoconductive" hearing losses can be diagnosed without resorting to surgery. This article reviews several possible mechanisms for this condition with diagnostic procedures to distinguish etiologic diseases. Conditions discussed include poor audiometry, functional hearing losses, "third window" causes, obliterated round window, abnormal inner ear connection with the cerebrospinal fluid space, inner ear mechanical conductive hearing loss, and apparent inner ear loss owing to missed middle ear pathology.

Audiometry↗

Self-assessment of hearing impairment: test of the expanded hearing ability scale questionnaire on hearing impaired adults in England.

The National Center for Health Statistics developed a questionnaire for self-assessment of hearing impairment which has been widely tested in the United States. The performance of this questionnaire was tested on a sample of 131 people in England, known to have hearing impairment and gave results very similar to those obtained in the United States. These results are compared with a randomly selected sample from the general population. Characteristics of the hearing ability scale derived from the questionnaire are discussed and some suggestions made for a modified version of the questionnaire. The relationship between the average pure tone threshold and the score derived from the hearing ability scale questionnaire is described and takes the form of a bounded relationship with scale score indicating the minimum threshold level.

Adolescent↗

Hearing with the bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA, HC 200) compared to a conventional bone-conduction hearing aid.

Sixteen patients have been fitted with a standard bone-anchored hearing aid (HC 200), to replace their conventional bone-conduction aid. The average pure tone threshold at 0.5, 1 and 2 kHz varied from 35 to 75 dB HL, with a sensorineural component varying from 0 to 30 dB HL. The patients' performance with the bone-anchored aid was compared to that with the conventional bone-conduction aid in an acoustic-free field. The maximum phoneme score in quiet was 100% in most patients; in 6 patients, the score with the bone-anchored aid was better (range from 5 to 10%). The speech-in-noise ratio was significantly better in 11 patients (range from -1.4 to -8 dB). None of the patients had poorer results on either test with the bone-anchored aid. The improved speech recognition was ascribed to better performance of the hearing aid in the higher frequency range (above 2 kHz) and to relatively less distortion.

Adolescent↗

The Colorado newborn hearing screening project, 1992-1999: on the threshold of effective population-based universal newborn hearing screening.

OBJECTIVE: Although previous studies have documented the feasibility and benefits of universal newborn hearing screening in selected hospitals, none have reviewed the effectiveness of regionally mandated participation of large numbers of hospitals with variable levels of motivation to succeed. The purpose of this study was to measure hospital participation and overall screening success in a statewide program for universal newborn hearing screening and to track improvements in program establishment and outpatient follow-up over time. METHODS: Four Colorado hospitals began voluntarily performing hearing screening before hospital discharge on all newborns in 1992. By 1996, 26 Colorado hospitals were participating in universal newborn hearing screening. The publication of screening results from these early years served as a catalyst for legislation requiring increased hospital participation in establishing universal screening programs. Data systems were subsequently developed to improve statistical tracking and follow-up. Eight years' worth of cumulative study data as well as the results from calendar year 1999 (the year of greatest hospital participation) were reviewed for collective measures of successful screening and follow-up. Three hospitals did not initiate newborn hearing screening programs until after the study period ended in 1999. Of the 57 hospitals that were screening newborns in 1999, the chosen method of screening at 52 hospitals was automated auditory brainstem response testing; 3 hospitals used otoacoustic emission testing, and the remaining 2 hospitals used 2-stage screening. Hearing loss was defined as a threshold of 35 decibels or greater in 1 or both ears at the time of confirmatory testing. RESULTS: During the full 8-year study period, 1992 to 1999, 148 240 newborns were screened. A total of 291 infants who were born during the study period received a diagnosis of congenital hearing loss. In this cohort of 291 children, the cumulative frequency of bilateral hearing loss was 71% (range: 48%-94% by calendar year), the frequency of sensorineural hearing loss was 82% (range: 67%-88%), and the frequency of 1 or more risk factors was 47% (range: 37%-61%). During calendar year 1999, a total of 63 590 births were recorded at 60 birthing hospitals in Colorado. The families of 263 (0.4%) of these newborns refused newborn hearing screening. Of the remaining 63 327 newborns, 87% (55 324 infants) were screened for hearing acuity before hospital discharge, a far greater percentage than the 19% of all newborns screened during the first 5 years of voluntary hospital participation, and approaching the American Academy of Pediatrics's recommendation of 95% of newborns completing hospital-based testing in a successful screening program. As a result of this statewide hearing screening program, congenital hearing loss was diagnosed in 86 Colorado newborns during 1999, representing an occurrence rate of approximately 1 affected child in every 650 newborns. In this group of 86 infants, 59 had bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, 17 had unilateral sensorineural hearing loss, 4 had bilateral conductive hearing loss, and 6 had unilateral conductive hearing loss. Mild hearing loss was present in 6 infants, moderate hearing loss was present in 42 infants, severe hearing loss was present in 33 infants, and profound hearing loss was present in the remaining 5 infants. Only 32 of the 86 affected newborns in 1999 had 1 or more risk factors for hearing loss subsequently identified. After failing an initial hospital-based screening at 1 of the 57 participating hospitals in 1999, 2.3% of infants screened (1283 newborns) were referred for follow-up testing, easily exceeding the standard of <4% recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Similarly, the false-positive rate of 2.2% during 1999 exceeded the recommended standard of <3%. Of the infants who failed their initial screening, 76% (978 infants) had documented follow-up testing to confirm or exclude congenital hearing loss, a percentage significantly improved from a follow-up rate of 48% during the first 5 years of screening, although not yet achieving the standard of 95% recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Nine participating hospitals, however, were able to document appropriate follow-up for 95% or more of the infants who failed their initial screening tests. The median age of diagnosis of congenital hearing loss during 1999 was 2.1 months; 71% of affected infants were identified by 3 months of age (the recommended standard for age of diagnosis), and 92% of affected newborns were identified by 5 months of age. Measures of screening success were compared for large, mid-sized, and small hospitals. Increasing hospital size, as measured by the number of births per year, was associated with an increasing percentage of newborns who were successfully screened. It was notable that smaller hospital size was associated with increased referral rates for follow-up testing, whereas larger hospital size was associated with the highest recapture rate for follow-up testing. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening for congenital hearing loss is demonstrated to be feasible in a large regional effort of legislatively mandated participation. The success of such an endeavor is dependent on educational efforts for community professionals, commitment on the part of program planners, and data systems that more accurately track and recall infants who fail initial hospital-based screening.

Colorado↗

Hearing aid use in nursing homes. Part 2: Barriers to effective utilization of hearing AIDS.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined barriers to hearing aid use among persons who were reported to have a hearing aid and among those reported to have hearing difficulties but no hearing aids. SETTING: Interviews were conducted at a large, mid-Atlantic nonprofit nursing home. PARTICIPANTS: Both nursing home residents (279) and nursing staff members (51) were interviewed. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: In a cross-sectional survey of nursing home residents, brief structured interviews were performed by trained research assistants with both residents and caregivers to obtain information regarding residents' hearing ability, hearing aid use and daily maintenance, and potential barriers to such use. RESULTS: Among residents reported to have hearing problems but who did not use a hearing aid, the major problem was neglect of the issue; participants did not know why residents did not have a hearing aid, residents had not had hearing evaluations, and staff members were not aware of hearing problems in residents. Among residents who did use a hearing aid, the majority (69%) of those for whom information was available had problems with the devices. The most common problems reported were that the device was hard or inconvenient to use, it did not fit well or hurt, and the device was not functioning well. The vast majority (86%) needed help taking care of the hearing aids. Close to half of the staff members had not received any training in the use or maintenance of the devices. Lack of delegation of responsibility for the management of hearing was identified for 29%, and relatives were used for maintenance of hearing aids in 14% of residents with hearing aids. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to hearing aid use are therefore complex and multifactorial, involving lack of system commitment to utilization of hearing aids, lack of knowledge by staff members, inappropriate delegation and care procedures, hearing aid design and fit issues, and difficulties for residents in handling the hearing aids. Addressing these issues requires change on multiple levels, including change at the institutional level, concerning policy and training; change at the unit level, regarding care procedures and follow up; change at the individual level, providing better checks of fit and function of the hearing aids; and finally, change at the societal level, addressing design and cost issues for hearing aids in this population.

Activities of Daily Living↗

Speech recognition performance of patients with sensorineural hearing loss under unaided and aided conditions using linear and compression hearing AIDS.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared speech recognition performance on the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) and the Connected Speech Test (CST) for three hearing aid circuits (peak clipping [PC], compression limiting [CL], and wide dynamic range compression [WDRC]) in adults with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The study also questioned whether or not hearing aid benefit for the three circuits was dependent upon the speech level and the signal-to-babble ratio (S/B) and upon the degree and slope of hearing loss. DESIGN: Unaided speech recognition performance for NU-6 and CST materials presented from a loudspeaker at 0 degrees was measured during Visit 1, and both unaided and aided performance was measured at 3-mo intervals during Visits 2 to 4. The NU-6 was presented in quiet at a conversational speech level of 62 dB SPL. The CST was presented in 10 listening conditions-three S/B (-3, 0, and 3 dB) at each of three speech levels (soft speech at 52 dB SPL, conversational speech at 62 dB SPL, and loud speech at 74 dB SPL) and in quiet at 74 dB SPL. Uncorrelated multi-talker babble was presented from two loudspeakers at 45 degrees on each side of the main speaker. Hearing aid benefit was examined for 360 subjects divided into four groups of hearing loss, pure tone average <40 dB HL and slope <10 dB/octave or >10 dB/octave and hearing loss >40 dB HL for the two slope categories. RESULTS: Hearing aid benefit (aided minus unaided performance) measured on the NU-6 in quiet exceeded 31 rau for all three circuits. Although small statistical advantages were found for the WDRC, the differences were approximately 2% and are not considered clinically relevant. Unaided CST performance showed a complex relationship between presentation level and signal-to-babble ratio that was further confounded by the degree of hearing loss. For the two mild hearing loss groups and for each of the three nominal signal-to-babble ratios, CST performance decreased by 20 rau for the -3 dB S/B to 6 rau for the 3 dB S/B as speech level increased from 52 to 74 dB SPL. In contrast, unaided performance increased by 32 to 13 rau with signal level for all signal-to-babble ratios for the two >40 dB hearing loss groups. Overall, aided CST performance exceeded unaided performance for all 10 conditions. As expected, hearing aid benefit was greatest (27 rau) for soft speech and smallest for loud speech (6 rau). Differences among the hearing aid circuits were small with only one significant difference; the WDRC at 62/0 was poorer by 3 rau than the other two circuits. When the CST data were analyzed as a function of hearing loss, five pair-wise comparisons were significant. In contrast to the unaided performance, aided performance for all hearing loss groups decreased as presentation level increased, even though the signal-to-babble ratio was constant. CONCLUSIONS: All three hearing aids circuits provided benefit over the unaided condition in both quiet and noise. The greatest benefit was measured for soft speech in the more severe hearing loss groups. Although only small differences were measured among the three hearing aid circuits, significant differences favored the PC and CL circuits over the WDRC in the mild hearing loss groups and favored the WDRC over the PC in the more severe, sloping hearing loss group. An interesting interaction between speech level, signal-to-babble ratio, degree of hearing loss, and amplification was found. For a constant signal-to-babble ratio, recognition performance decreased as speech level increased from 52 to 74 dB SPL. The effect was most marked in the milder hearing loss groups and in the aided conditions, and occurred at even the lowest speech levels.

Adult↗

Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: infants with hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the audiologic findings and medical status of infants who were found to have hearing loss, detected as part of the Identification of Neonatal Hearing Impairment (INHI) project. In addition, the neonatal and maternal health variables for the group of infants who could not be tested with visual reinforcement audiometry (VRA) due to developmental and visual disability are presented. DESIGN: The overall goal of the INHI project was to evaluate the test performance of auditory brain stem response and evoked otoacoustic emission (OAE) tests given in the newborn period. These tools were evaluated on the basis of the infants' hearing when tested behaviorally with VRA at 8 to 12 mo corrected age. The neonatal test results, VRA results, medical history information and a record of intercurrent events occurring between the neonatal period and the time of VRA were collated and reviewed. The purpose of this article is to review the characteristics of those infants who were found to have hearing loss. RESULTS: Of 2995 infants who had VRA tests judged to be of good or fair reliability, 168 had a finding of hearing loss for at least one ear, an incidence of 5.6%. Sixty-six infants had bilateral losses, an incidence of 2%, and 22 infants had bilateral hearing losses in the moderate to profound range, an incidence 0.7%. The prevalence of middle ear problems was greater than 50% among these infants with hearing loss. From the larger group of 168 infants with hearing loss, a group of 56 infants (86 ears) was chosen as those with a low probability that the hearing loss was due to transient middle ear pathology and was more likely hearing loss of a permanent nature. These were the infants used for the analyses of neonatal test performance (Norton et al., 2000). In this selected group there were 30 infants with bilateral impairment of at least mild degree, which is an incidence of 1%. There were approximately equal numbers of ears in the mild, moderate, severe and profound range of hearing loss. Risk factors associated with hearing loss were reviewed for the total sample of infants tested with VRA and for those infants with hearing loss. A history of treatment with aminoglycosides was the risk factor most often reported in the entire sample; however, there was no difference in prevalence of this risk factor for the normal-hearing and hearing-impaired groups. The risk factor associated with the highest incidence of hearing loss was stigmata of syndromes associated with sensorineural hearing loss and other neurosensory disorders. Sixty-seven infants who returned for follow-up could not be tested with VRA due to severe developmental delay or visual disability. Many of these infants had medical histories indicating the sequelae of extreme prematurity and/or very low birthweight. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the hearing losses found in this study were mild and, based on clinical history and tympanometry tests, many of the mild and some of the moderate impairments may have been acquired in early infancy due to middle ear effusion. In the group of infants used for determination of neonatal test performance there were approximately equal numbers of mild, moderate, severe and profound losses. Only a small percentage of infants with a conventional risk indicator for hearing loss actually had a hearing loss, and there were a significant number of infants with hearing loss who did not have a risk indicator. These findings support the need for an early identification program based on universal neonatal hearing screening rather than by targeted testing of those with risk indicators.

Ear, Middle↗

Working in noise with a hearing loss: perceptions from workers, supervisors, and hearing conservation program managers.

OBJECTIVE: Workers with hearing loss face special problems, especially when working in noise. However, conventional hearing conservation practices do not distinguish between workers with normal hearing versus impaired hearing. This study collected information from workers with self-reported noise exposure and hearing loss, supervisors of such workers, and hearing conservation program managers through focus groups and in-depth interviews to evaluate their perspectives on the impact of hearing loss on safety and job performance, the use of hearing protection, and information needed to appropriately manage hearing-impaired workers who work in noisy environments. RESULTS: Concerns about working in noise with a hearing loss could be grouped into the following 10 categories: impact on job performance, impact on job safety, impaired ability to hear warning signals, impaired ability to monitor equipment, interference with communication, stress and/or fatigue, impaired communication caused by hearing protector use, reduced ability to monitor the environment as the result of hearing protector use, concerns about future quality of life, and concerns about future employability. Mostly, there was an agreement between the perceptions of workers, supervisors, and hearing conservation program managers regarding difficulties associated with hearing loss and consequent needs. These findings suggest that noise-exposed workers with hearing loss face many of the same problems reported in the literature by noise-exposed workers with normal hearing, with additional concerns primarily about job safety as the result of a reduced ability to hear environmental sounds, warning signals, and so forth. CONCLUSIONS: The study outlines potential challenges regarding job safety and hearing conservation practices for noise-exposed, hearing-impaired workers. Awareness of these issues is a necessary first step toward providing appropriate protective measures for noise-exposed, hearing-impaired workers.

Adult↗