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 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Investigation of the profile of hearing aid performance in experienced hearing aid users.

OBJECTIVE: A shortened version of the 66-item Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP), consisting of the 24 items from the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, was evaluated as an alternative to the full PHAP questionnaire as a measure of hearing aid performance. Objectives were to: 1) statistically determine factors underlying Abbreviated PHAP (APHAP) scores; 2) recommend modifications to the questionnaire, if indicated by the factor analysis; 3) compare scores for the PHAP and APHAP; and 4) determine the suitability of the abbreviated questionnaire for New Zealand hearing aid users. The relationship between hearing aid performance and subjective variables and other measures of hearing aid success also was investigated. DESIGN: PHAP data, hearing aid satisfaction ratings, and reported daily hearing aid use were obtained from experienced adult hearing aid users. Factor analysis was carried out for the 24 APHAP items, and two items were excluded because of low factor loadings. After this modification, APHAP and PHAP scores were compared. Pearson's correlation values were determined for PHAP and APHAP data and degree of hearing loss, hearing aid satisfaction, and hours of hearing aid use. RESULTS: APHAP hearing aid performance was better described as three factors rather than four subscales. PHAP and APHAP results were consistent with previous studies and showed that hearing aid performance was best for easy listening situations and poorest for noisy and/or reverberant conditions. Similar trends were seen for PHAP and APHAP data. APHAP scores were correlated with hours of hearing aid use and overall hearing aid satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: A shortened, 22-item APHAP is a preferred alternative to the full PHAP, producing data representing several dimensions of hearing aid performance. Modified APHAP scores can be used together with overall satisfaction and estimates of daily hearing aid use to measure success with hearing aids.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Hearing aid use in Finnish children--impact of hearing loss variables and detection delay.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to study the factors contributing to the mode of hearing aid use in children, with special emphasis on hearing loss variables and detection delay. METHODS: The subjects were 328 children and adolescents (58.5% boys, 41.5% girls) aged 1-18 years with hearing loss of > or =30 dB HL in the better ear fitted with hearing aid(s). The study was cross-sectional analysing the mode of using the aid binaurally/unilaterally or not at all. RESULTS: The children with hearing-impairment ranging from 50 to 90 dB HL used more regularly their hearing aids. In the subjects with hearing loss > or =80 dB HL the presence of measurable hearing threshold at 4 kHz related significantly to the acceptance of amplification (p=0.027). In 19% of the subjects hearing aid was discarded. Bilateral amplification was used in 38%. Unilateral use was the prevailing mode (44%). The younger the children (p=0.000) and the worse their hearing loss (p=0.008), the more regular their bilateral use was. Early detection of hearing loss and early hearing aid fitting promoted binaural hearing aid use (p=0.004). A marked asymmetry in pure tone thresholds was a significant audiological reason for fixed unilateral hearing device use (38%, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that early detection of hearing loss and early habilitation of hearing increase bilateral use of hearing device and decrease the number of nonusers. Furthermore, residual unaided hearing at 4 kHz significantly improves the use of device.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Who wants a hearing aid? Personality profiles of hearing aid seekers.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence indicates that elderly hearing-impaired people who use amplification live happier, healthier, and longer lives than those who do not. Nevertheless, only a small fraction (approximately 23%) of hearing-impaired adults actually seek and use hearing aids. This study explored the personalities of hearing aid seekers in an attempt to determine whether those who seek hearing aids are systematically different from the general population. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional survey, self-report data were obtained from 230 older adults with bilateral, symmetrical, sensorineural, mild to moderately severe hearing impairment. Subjects were representative of patients served either in a publicly funded hospital-based system (VA) or in a free-standing private practice system (PP). All subjects were seeking new hearing aids. Subjects completed a comprehensive personality questionnaire (NEO-Five-Factor Inventory) as well as questionnaires determining locus of control and preferred coping strategies. RESULTS: Individuals who seek amplification are not simply a random sample of the general population and presumably not a random sample of the hearing-impaired population. Compared with the typical adult, hearing aid seekers tended to be more pragmatic and routine-oriented and probably less imaginative in coming up with novel approaches to dealing with a complex problem such as hearing impairment. These individuals also were found to feel relatively more personally powerful in dealing with life's challenges. Further, hearing aid seekers reported using social support coping strategies less frequently than their non-hearing-impaired peers. In addition, there were significant differences in personality patterns between hearing aid seekers in the PP and VA systems. Differences noted in the personality traits of Openness and Neuroticism might be a useful guide to selecting treatment approaches and expectations for patients in each setting. Additional differences in Agreeableness imply that patients in the private practice system were more trusting than those in the general population, whereas this was not seen for patients in the public health VA system. One interpretation of this finding is that hearing-impaired individuals who are more suspicious and cynical are reluctant to try amplification in the PP system. This observation underscores the need to improve the public image of hearing health care to increase the uptake of hearing aids in general. CONCLUSIONS: Although individual hearing aid seekers display personality characteristics within the range of normal, this study suggested that they are not simply a random sample of the general population. Possible explanations are offered for significant personality differences, and potential clinical relevance is noted for some effects. The data also point to a need to improve the public image of hearing health care in the PP system.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The role of hearing aids in providing environmental feedback for the profoundly hearing impaired.

A number of studies have brought out the limitations of hearing aids in the rehabilitation of hearing impaired. This study was undertaken to assess the use of hearing aids in improving the ability of the hearing impaired to hear vehicular horns. The students of a school for the hearing impaired were interviewed with the help of their teachers. Out of total 102 study subjects, 47 (46%) said that they drove vehicles. None of them used hearing aid while driving vehicles. However, 56 (55%) students possessed functional box type hearing aids. Their ability to hear the sound of vehicular horns with and without hearing aids in the presence of background noise under experimental set up was assessed. None of the 36 study subjects could hear the horns (< 85 dB and > 85 dB) without hearing aid. Only 5 (16.6%) of the 30 profoundly hearing impaired students could hear the sound of horns (> 85 dB) with the hearing aid. The hearing aid was found to be more beneficial to subjects with severe hearing impairment. There is a need to bring forth newer and better varieties of hearing aids and other technologies e.g. Cochlear implant within the reach of those in need.

Accidents, Traffic↗
PubMed2003

The 5-year incidence and progression of hearing loss: the epidemiology of hearing loss study.

CONTEXT: Hearing impairment affects many older adults, but the incidence is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the 5-year incidence and progression of hearing impairment. DESIGN: A longitudinal, population-based study of adults aged 48 to 92 years at baseline examination. Hearing sensitivity was measured twice, 5 years apart. SETTING: Testing was conducted at the Beaver Dam Community Hospital, Beaver Dam, Wis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1636 participants without hearing loss and 1085 participants with hearing loss at the baseline examination in 1993-1995 were reexamined in 1998-2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The examinations included otoscopy, screening tympanometry, and tone air- and bone-conduction audiometry. Incidence of hearing impairment was defined as a pure-tone average (PTA) of thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz (PTA 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) greater than 25 dB HL (hearing level) in either ear at follow-up among those without hearing loss at baseline. Progression was defined as a change of more than 5 dB in the PTA 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz among those with hearing loss at baseline. RESULTS: The 5-year incidence of hearing impairment was 21%. More than half of those with hearing loss at baseline experienced a decline in hearing. Age was an important risk factor for both incidence and progression. Male sex, occupation, and education were associated with the incidence of hearing loss after adjusting for age. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults have a high risk of developing hearing loss. Among those with hearing loss, most experience further declines in hearing sensitivity over time. These data indicate that hearing impairment is an important public health problem and underscore the need for appropriate hearing screening and treatment.

Acoustic Impedance Tests↗
PubMed2001

Hearing preservation in patients with vestibular schwannomas with sudden sensorineural hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated hearing outcomes in patients with sudden hearing loss and vestibular schwannoma who underwent a hearing preservation operation for tumor resection in an effort to determine whether a history of sudden sensorineural hearing loss has an impact on subsequent hearing preservation surgery. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 45 patients operated between 1990 and 1998. Patients were divided into "Recovery" (n = 22) and "No Recovery" (n = 23) groups based on preoperative hearing recovery. Hearing preservation was assessed using the AAO-HNS hearing classification system. RESULTS: Measurable hearing was preserved in 73% of patients, with 47% having good postoperative hearing (AAO-HNS Classes A-B). There was no significant difference in hearing outcome from patients presenting with progressive hearing loss (45% Classes A-B). There was also no difference in postoperative hearing between the "Recovery" and "No Recovery" groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with sudden hearing loss and vestibular schwannoma have the same chance of hearing preservation after tumor removal as those with progressive loss. Preoperative recovery of hearing is not predictive of hearing preservation. Available data support the nerve compression theory as the mechanism of sudden hearing loss in patients with vestibular schwannoma.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

[No evidence for hearing aid-induced progressive pediatric hearing loss in the Cologne region].

Progressive hearing loss during childhood caused by a hearing-aid induced deterioration has been discussed controversely since 1939. However, it is unchallenged that in cases of profound sensorineural hearing loss in infancy and early childhood powerful hearing aids are necessary for auditory and speech development. Due to an increase of progressive hearing losses during the last 4 years, we discussed the possible causes and the probability of hearing aid induced progressions once more. Our study consists of two investigations: First, all patients since 1993 suffering from progressive hearing loss among all hearing impaired children in the department of Audiology and Pedaudiology of the ENT-Hospital of Cologne were taken into account. Second, all children of the Rheinische school for hearing impaired children were investigated. The evaluated data included the degree of severity and etiology of the hearing loss, the duration of the hearing aids use and the amplification of the hearing aid. 23 children were diagnosed with a progressive hearing loss in the period. We observed a massive increase over these years. No correlation between the duration of the hearing aid usage and the maximum output level was found. Furthermore, there was no difference between the causes of the hearing losses between the children of the school and the children with progressive hearing loss. At the moment, we do not see any reason to change our strategy for fitting hearing aids. The increase of progressive cases in the last 2 years should be the reason for further investigations in this field.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Tolerable hearing aid delays. I. Estimation of limits imposed by the auditory path alone using simulated hearing losses.

OBJECTIVE: When people who wear hearing aids speak, there are three paths by which they hear their own voices: 1) through the air and leakage around the earmold; 2) via the solid structures of their head; 3) through the air to the hearing aid microphone, and then through the aid circuitry. These paths involve different time delays. Digital processing introduces delays in path 3 from a few to several tens of milliseconds, which could lead to a range of disturbing effects. We examined one purely auditory effect, namely hearing speech through all three of these paths. Subjective disturbance was measured as a function of delay in path 3 using simulations of hearing loss and a simulated hearing aid. With increasing hearing loss, the loudness of sound heard via paths 1 and 2 decreases, and the aid user relies more on path 3. The disturbance produced by the delay then might be less perceptible. To test this idea, four different hearing losses were simulated, varying from mild to moderately severe. DESIGN: Each of two talkers was fitted with a closed earmold, and simultaneous above-ear and in-ear recordings were made of each talker reading prose. The above-ear signal was amplified using a simulated hearing aid with 4-channel full dynamic range compression; compression ratios and gains were selected using an algorithm based on the absolute thresholds used in the simulations of hearing loss. The resultant output was then mixed with the in-ear signal with one of five values of delay, and the combined signal was processed using the four simulations of hearing loss. The resulting stimuli simulated for normal-hearing listeners the experience of having a hearing impairment and listening through a hearing aid while talking, except that the talker's voice was not that of the listener. Twenty normally hearing subjects gave subjective ratings of the disturbance of the echo for each delay and each simulated hearing loss. RESULTS: Disturbance ratings generally increased monotonically with increasing delay. Average results show that delays are rated as "disturbing" for values between 20 and 30 msec for mild to moderate losses. For a moderately severe loss, the rating "disturbing" was not quite achieved at 40 msec. For moderate losses, a speaker with low fundamental frequency (f0)(70 to 140 Hz) was less disturbing than a speaker with a medium f0, (100 to 180 Hz). This effect reversed for the mildest loss for low values of delay. CONCLUSIONS: The auditory effects of delays between bone-conducted sound and aid-conducted sound are likely to become disturbing for delays exceeding 20 msec. Somewhat longer delays may be tolerable for moderate to severe hearing losses. These delays are smaller than the delays at which audio-visual integration is disrupted.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Comparison of the bone anchored hearing aid implantable hearing device with contralateral routing of offside signal amplification in the rehabilitation of unilateral deafness.

OBJECTIVE: Monaural hearing imposes constraints under many listening conditions. The authors compared the effects of a semi-implantable bone conductor, the Entific bone anchored hearing aid, with conventional contralateral routing of offside signal amplification to assess rehabilitative benefit in adults with unilateral deafness. DESIGN: Prospective trials of subjects with unilateral deafness using benefit surveys, source identification testing, and hearing in noise testing. SETTING: Tertiary referral center, outpatient surgical and audiologic services. PATIENTS: Adults with unilateral deafness (pure tone average >90 dB, SD <20%) after acoustic neuroma excision (n = 7), meningitis (n = 1), sudden sensorineural hearing loss (n = 1), and sudden sensorineural hearing loss with chronic suppurative otitis media (n = 1). Entry criteria included normal hearing in the contralateral ear (pure tone average <25 dB, SD >80%). INTERVENTION: Subjects were fitted with contralateral routing of offside signal amplification devices for 1 month and tested with contralateral routing of offside signal before mastoid implantation of the deaf ear, fitting, and testing for bone anchored hearing aid. OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjects' assessment of experience with their devices and patterns of use, 2) source azimuth identification in noise test, and 3) speech discrimination in quiet and in noise under conditions of noise-front, noise-to-normal-ear, and noise-to-deaf-ear. RESULTS: There was consistent satisfaction with bone anchored hearing aid implantation and amplification, and poor acceptance of contralateral routing of offside signal amplification. Sound localization was poor at baseline and with both bone anchored hearing aid and contralateral routing of offside signal. Relative to baseline, contralateral routing of offside signal and bone anchored hearing aid produced significantly better speech recognition in noise under most conditions. The bone anchored hearing aid enabled significantly better speech recognition than contralateral routing of offside signal in quiet and in a composite of noise conditions. The advantages may relate to averting the interference of speech signals delivered to the better ear, as occurs with conventional contralateral routing of offside signal amplification. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data in subjects with normal monaural hearing indicate that vibromechanical stimulation with the bone anchored hearing aid overcomes some of the negative head shadow effects in unilateral deafness. The bone anchored hearing aid system, when placed on the side of a deaf ear, yields greater benefit in subjects with normal monaural hearing than does contralateral routing of offside signal amplification. It seems that this rehabilitative approach can expand the sound field of monaural listeners in further enhancing speech understanding. Observations suggest that further understanding of bone conduction as implemented in transcranial stimulation will guide further options for patients with monaural hearing. Longer follow-up will help to determine whether communicative skill improvements with the bone anchored hearing aid outweigh the disadvantages of implantation surgery, costs, and device maintenance.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

A multicenter evaluation of how many infants with permanent hearing loss pass a two-stage otoacoustic emissions/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol.

OBJECTIVE: Ninety percent of all newborns in the United States are now screened for hearing loss before they leave the hospital. Many hospitals use a 2-stage protocol for newborn hearing screening in which all infants are screened first with otoacoustic emissions (OAE). No additional testing is done with infants who pass the OAE, but infants who fail the OAE next are screened with automated auditory brainstem response (A-ABR). Infants who fail the A-ABR screening are referred for diagnostic testing to determine whether they have permanent hearing loss (PHL). Those who pass the A-ABR are considered at low risk for hearing loss and are not tested further. The objective of this multicenter study was to determine whether a substantial number of infants who fail the initial OAE and pass the A-ABR have PHL at approximately 9 months of age. METHODS: Seven birthing centers with successful newborn hearing screening programs using a 2-stage OAE/A-ABR screening protocol participated. During the study period, 86634 infants were screened for hearing loss at these sites. Of those infants who failed the OAE but passed the A-ABR in at least 1 ear, 1524 were enrolled in the study. Data about prenatal, neonatal, and socioeconomic factors, plus hearing loss risk indicators, were collected for all enrolled infants. When the infants were an average of 9.7 months of age, diagnostic audiologic evaluations were done for 64% of the enrolled infants (1432 ears from 973 infants). RESULTS: Twenty-one infants (30 ears) who had failed the OAE but passed the A-ABR during the newborn hearing screening were identified with permanent bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. Twenty-three (77%) of the ears had mild hearing loss (average of 1 kHz, 2 kHz, and 4 kHz < or =40-decibel hearing level). Nine (43%) infants had bilateral as opposed to unilateral loss, and 18 (86%) infants had sensorineural as opposed to permanent conductive hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: If all infants were screened for hearing loss using the 2-stage OAE/A-ABR newborn hearing screening protocol currently used in many hospitals, then approximately 23% of those with PHL at approximately 9 months of age would have passed the A-ABR. This happens in part because much of the A-ABR screening equipment in current use was designed to identify infants with moderate or greater hearing loss. Thus, program administrators should be certain that the screening program, equipment, and protocols are designed to identify the type of hearing loss targeted by their program. The results also show the need for continued surveillance of hearing status during childhood.

Audiometry, Evoked Response↗
PubMed1991

Prediction of deterioration in hearing due to hearing aid use.

There is a definite risk of overamplification by hearing aids. Guidelines should therefore be established that will minimize the risk of damage to hearing involved in hearing aid use. A mathematical model that can be used for this purpose is derived from equations for predicting noise-induced permanent threshold shift given in International Standard ISO 1999 combined with the Modified Power Law. The model implies that any noise exposure that would cause deterioration of the hearing threshold levels of a person with normal hearing would also be harmful to the hearing of a person with sensorineural hearing impairment. It follows that, in order to ensure that no deterioration occurs in the hearing of a hearing aid user, the output levels from the aid must be such that they would not cause any damage to a person with normal hearing. This constraint can be met for hearing aid users with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss but cannot be met for users with severe-to-profound loss because it would result in the provision of insufficient gain, particularly at the higher frequencies. If the model is valid, then for this group, some appropriately small amount of hearing damage must be accepted as the cost of the advantages gained from the use of a hearing aid. Verification of the model is essential before the model is used in clinical practice to determine the risk of deterioration in hearing due to hearing aid use.

Auditory Fatigue↗
PubMed1995

Prevalence of hearing problems, and use of hearing aids among a sample of elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Deterioration of hearing with advancing age is well documented. However, the proportion of elderly people with hearing problems who wear hearing aids is low. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of hearing disability in a group of elderly patients in hospital and to determine their attitudes to hearing difficulties and the wearing of hearing aids. METHOD: A random sample of patients who were convalescing were interviewed. A detailed questionnaire was administered to patients regarding their hearing difficulties. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were recruited. Twenty two patients were excluded because of low mental test scores, hence 57 patients (72%) were eligible for inclusion into the study. Thirty eight patients were women (mean age 81 years) and 19 were men (mean age 79 years). Thirty patients (53%) reported difficulties with their hearing, of whom 12 had hearing aids. Seventeen patients had consulted their general practitioner about their difficulties, 15 of whom had been referred for audiological examination. Thirteen patients chose not to consult about their hearing problems, to 'suffer in silence'. Of the 12 patients with hearing aids three reported discomfort or pain and five reported problems such as an ill-fitting hearing aid and excessive amplification. Six patients said they wore their hearing aid for less than four hours a day. CONCLUSION: Almost all patients consulting their general practitioner with hearing problems were referred for audiological examination but subsequent follow up, especially of problems with hearing aids, was poor. Better health education and case finding is indicated and patients with hearing aids must be questioned specifically about problems when they consult health professionals. Proper assessment, screening and follow up has implications for resources and training, especially of practice nurses.

Aged↗
PubMed1999

Characteristics of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children.

OBJECTIVE: Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) were measured in children with normal hearing and in children with hearing loss to investigate the characteristics of TEOAEs as they relate to overall amplitude and amplitude spectra of evoking stimuli, and to audiometric status. DESIGN: Three parameters of response measure (signal to noise ratio, amplitude and reproducibility) were assessed to determine accuracy of identification of varying degrees of hearing loss for broadband clicks, frequency-specific click bands and tone bursts. Forty-four children (66 ears) between 4 and 13 yr of age were evaluated for participation in the study. Fifty-nine ears with intact tympanic membranes were included in the final analyses: 14 ears with normal hearing and 45 ears with hearing loss. RESULTS: Children with normal hearing had robust responses that displayed nonlinear growth functions for broadband clicks and for tone bursts. Children with hearing loss had responses that decreased rapidly with decreasing stimulus level, if emissions were present at all. Data were analyzed using clinical decision analysis and receiver operator characteristic curves. Broadband clicks presented at 80 and 86 dB peSPL identified a hearing loss > or = 30 dB HL with a high degree of accuracy. Click responses filtered into octave bands centered at 500 and 1000 Hz did not improve classification of hearing loss, in fact, the 500 Hz band was particularly inaccurate. Results for click responses filtered into half-octave bands centered at 2000 and 4000 Hz were comparable with those for the broadband click, although the 2000 Hz band was superior for identification of hearing loss > or = 20 dB HL for an 80 dB peSPL click, and > or = 30 dB HL for an 86 dB peSPL click. Results for tone bursts centered at 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz, presented at 80 dB peSPL, were similar to results of the filtered click bands. Accuracy for identifying hearing loss increased with increasing center frequency. The 2000 and 4000 Hz tone bursts provided the best separation between normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears, with 4000 Hz being slightly better. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study suggest that TEOAEs in children can separate ears with normal hearing from those with hearing loss using a variety of stimulus and response conditions. Moreover, by using multiple stimulus levels it may be possible to distinguish between mild and moderate hearing losses.

Acoustic Stimulation↗
PubMed2005

Effects of sensorineural hearing loss and personal hearing AIDS on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically investigate the combined effects of sensorineural hearing loss and prescribed personal hearing aid(s) on cortical event-related potentials (ERPs) (waves N1, MMN, N2b, and P3b) and their related behavioral measures of discrimination (d-prime sensitivity and reaction time) to the speech sounds /ba/ and /da/ presented at 65 and 80 dB peak-to-peak equivalent SPL. DESIGN: Cortical ERPs were recorded to /ba/ and /da/ speech stimuli presented at 65 and 80 dB peak-to-peak equivalent SPL from 20 normal-hearing adults and 14 adults with sensorineural hearing losses. The degree of sensorineural impairment at 1000 to 2000 Hz ranged from moderate losses (50 to 74 dB HL) to severe-profound losses (75 to 120 dB HL). The speech stimuli were presented in an oddball paradigm and cortical ERPs were recorded in both active and passive listening conditions at both stimulus intensities. The adults with hearing impairments were tested in the unaided and aided conditions at each stimulus intensity. Electroacoustic and real-ear testing was performed on each subject's hearing aid(s) before electrophysiology testing to ensure that the hearing aids were functioning at the time of testing. RESULTS: The use of personal hearing aids substantially improved the detectability of all the cortical ERPs and behavioral d-prime performance scores at both stimulus intensities. This was especially true for individuals with severe-profound hearing losses. At 65 dB SPL, mean ERP amplitudes and d-prime sensitivity scores were all significantly higher or better in the aided versus unaided condition. At 80 dB SPL, only the N1 amplitudes and d-prime sensitivity scores were significantly better in the aided condition. Even though the majority of the hearing-impaired subjects showed increased amplitudes, decreased latencies, and better waveform morphology in the aided condition, the amount of response change (improvements) seen in these measures showed considerable variability across subjects. When compared with the responses obtained from the normal-hearing subjects, both hearing-impaired groups had significantly prolonged aided RT latencies at both stimulus intensities and N2b latencies at the higher stimulus intensities. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that hearing-impaired individuals' brains process speech stimuli with greater accuracy and in a more effective manner when these individuals use their personal hearing aids. This is especially true at the lower stimulus intensity. The effects of sensorineural hearing loss and personal hearing aids on cortical ERPs and behavioral measures of discrimination are dependent on the degree of sensorineural loss, the intensity of the stimuli, and the level of cortical auditory processing that the response measure is assessing. The possible clinical significance of these cortical ERP and behavioral findings is discussed.

Acoustic Stimulation↗
PubMed2001

Validation of self-reported hearing loss. The Blue Mountains Hearing Study.

PURPOSE: Large-scale epidemiological studies have often used self-report to estimate prevalence of age-related hearing loss. However, few large population-based studies have validated self-report against measured hearing loss. Our study aimed to assess the performance of a single question and a brief hearing handicap questionnaire in identifying individuals with hearing loss, against the gold standard of pure-tone audiometry. METHODS: We examined 2015 residents, aged 55-99 years, living in the west of Sydney, Australia, who participated in the Blue Mountains Hearing Study during 1997-1999. Audiologists administered a comprehensive questionnaire, including the question: 'Do you feel you have a hearing loss?' The Shortened Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly (HHIE-S) was also administered during the hearing examination, which included pure-tone audiometry. The single question and HHIE-S were compared with measured losses at levels >25, >40 and >60 decibels hearing level (dBHL) to indicate mild, moderate and marked hearing impairment, for pure-tone averages (PTA) of responses to 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz. RESULTS: The single question yielded reasonable sensitivity and specificity for hearing impairment, and was minimally affected by age and gender. HHIE-S scores >8 had lower sensitivity but higher specificity and positive predictive value. The HHIE-S performed slightly better in younger than older subjects and performed better for moderate hearing impairment. CONCLUSIONS: In this older population with a high prevalence of hearing loss (39.4%), both a question about hearing and the HHIE-S appeared sufficiently sensitive and specific to provide reasonable estimates of hearing loss prevalence. Both could be recommended for use in epidemiological studies that aim to assess the magnitude of the burden caused by age-related sensory impairment but cannot measure hearing loss by audiometry.

Aged↗