Assessment of the Effectiveness of a Short-term Hearing Aid Use in Patients with Different Degrees of Hearing Loss - Publication - Bridge of Knowledge

Your account

login

Search

Assessment of the Effectiveness of a Short-term Hearing Aid Use in Patients with Different Degrees of Hearing Loss

Abstract

The study presents evaluating the effectiveness of the hearing aid fitting process in the short-term use (7 days). The evaluation method consists of a survey based on the APHAB (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit) questionnaire. Additional criteria such as a degree of hearing loss, number of hours and days of hearing aid use as well as the user’s experience were also taken into consideration. The outcomes of the benefit obtained from the hearing aid use in various listening environments for 109 hearing aid users are presented, including a degree of their hearing loss. The research study results show that it is possible to obtain relevant and reliable information helpful in assessing the effectiveness of the shortterm (7 days) hearing aid use. The overall percentage of subjects gaining a benefit when communicating in noise is the highest of all the analyzed and the lowest in the environment with reverberation. The statistical analysis performed confirms that in the listening environments in which conversation is held, a subjective indicator determined by averaging benefits for listening situations individually is statistically significant with respect to the degree of hearing loss. Statistically significant differences depending on the degree of hearing loss are also found separately for noisy as well as reverberant environments. However, it should be remembered that this study is limited to three types of hearing loss, i.e. mild, moderate and severe. The acceptance of unpleasant sounds gets the lowest rating. It has also been observed that in the initial period of hearing aid use, the perception of unpleasant sounds has a big influence on the evaluation of hearing improvement

Citations

  • 0

    CrossRef

  • 0

    Web of Science

  • 3

    Scopus

Authors (3)

Cite as

Full text

download paper
downloaded 20 times
Publication version
Accepted or Published Version
License
Creative Commons: CC-BY-SA open in new tab

Keywords

Details

Category:
Articles
Type:
artykuły w czasopismach
Published in:
Archives of Acoustics no. 44, pages 719 - 2019,
ISSN: 0137-5075
Language:
English
Publication year:
2019
Bibliographic description:
Poremski T., Szymański P., Kostek B.: Assessment of the Effectiveness of a Short-term Hearing Aid Use in Patients with Different Degrees of Hearing Loss// Archives of Acoustics -Vol. 44,iss. 4 (2019), s.719-2019
DOI:
Digital Object Identifier (open in new tab) 10.24425/aoa.2019.129727
Bibliography: test
  1. Aubreville M., Ehrensperger K., Maier A., Rosenkranz T., Graf B., Puder H. (2018), Deep denoising for hearing aid applications, arXiv:1805.01198 [eess.AS] [accessed June 2018]. open in new tab
  2. Cochran W.G. (1952), The chi-square goodness-of-fit test, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 315-345. open in new tab
  3. Cox R.M. (1997), Administration and application of the APHAB, The Hearing Journal, 50, 32, 35-36, 38, 40-41, 44-45, 48. open in new tab
  4. Cox R.M. (1999), Measuring hearing aid outcomes: Part 1, Journal of the American Academy of Audiol- ogy, 10, Editorial.
  5. Cox R.M., Alexander G.C. (1995), The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit, Ear and Hearing, 16, 176- 186. open in new tab
  6. Cox R.M., Alexander G.C., Gray G.A. (2003), Audiometric correlates of the unaided APHAB, The Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 14, 361-371.
  7. Cox R.M., Alexander G.C., Gray G.A. (2005), Hearing aid patients in private practice and public health (veterans affairs) clinics: are they different?, Ear and Hear, 26, 513-528. open in new tab
  8. Dillon H., James A., Ginis J. (1997), Client Ori- ented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relation- ship to several other measures of benefit and satisfac- tion provided by hearing aids, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 8, 27-43.
  9. Hojan E. (2014), Hearing prosthetics [in Polish: Pro- tetyka słuchu], Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań.
  10. Houben R., Dijkstra T.M.H., Dreschler W.A. (2011), Differences in preference for noise reduction strength between individual listeners, Proceedings of the 130th Convention of the Audio Engineering Soci- etz, Paper No: 8447, London. open in new tab
  11. Humes L.E. (1999), Dimensions of hearing aid out- come, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 26-39.
  12. Johnson J.A., Cox R.M., Alexander G.C. (2010), Development of APHAB norms for WDRC hearing aids and comparisons with original norms, Ear and Hearing, 31, 47-55. open in new tab
  13. Karczewska-Nabelek A. (2007), Predicting hearing aid acceptance and beyond, Archives of Acoustics, 32, 3, 505-510.
  14. Kąkol K., Kostek B. (2016), A study on signal pro- cessing methods applied to hearing aids, Signal process- ing algorithms, architectures, arrangements, and appli- cations, SPA 2016, pp. 219-224, Poznan, Poland, 21- 23.09.2016. open in new tab
  15. Kuklasiński A., Jensen J. (2017), Multichan- nel Wiener filters in binaural and bilateral hearing aids -speech intelligibility improvement and robust- ness to DoA errors, Journal of the Audio Engi- neering Society, 65, 1/2, 8-16, doi: https://doi.org/ 10.17743/jaes.2016.0060, 16. Littmann V., Beilin J., Froehlich M., Bran- da E., Schäfer P.J. (2016), Clinical studies show ad- vanced hearing aid technology reduces listening effort, The Hearing Review, April 2016, http://www.hearing- review.com/2016/03/clinical-studies-show-advanced- hearing-aid-technology-reduces-listening-effort/ [acces- sed June 2018]. open in new tab
  16. Löhler J., Akcicek B., Wollenberg B., Kap- pe T., Schlattmann P., Schönweiler R. (2016), The influence of frequency-dependent hearing loss to unaided APHAB scores, European Archives of Oto- Rhino-Laryngology, 273, 3587-3593. open in new tab
  17. Löhler J., Gräbner F., Wollenberg B., Schalt- tmann P., Schönweiler R. (2017), Sensitivity and specificity of the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB), European Archives of Oto-Rhino- Laryngology, 274, 3593-3598. open in new tab
  18. McArdel R., Chisolm T.H., Abrams H.B., Wil- son R.H., Doyle P.J. (2005), The WHO-DAS II: measuring outcomes of hearing aid intervention for adults, Trends in Amplification, 9, 127-143. open in new tab
  19. Mendel L.L. (2009), Subjective and Objective Mea- sures of Hearing Aid Outcome, from AudiologyOnline: www.audiologyonline.com/articles/subjective-and- objective-measures-hearing-891 [accessed 7.07.2017]. open in new tab
  20. Poremski T., Szymański P., Kostek B. (2017), Short-term evaluation of the effectiveness of hearing aids employing the web-based survey, Proceedings of XVII International Symposium on Sound Engineering and Tonmeistering, Warsaw, Poland. open in new tab
  21. Schafer P.J. et al. (2015), Evaluation of an objective listening effort measure in a selective, multi-speaker lis- tening task using different hearing aid settings, Confer- ence Proceedings of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, August 2015, pp. 4647-4650, Milan, Italy, doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319430. open in new tab
  22. Shi L.-F., Doherty K.A., Kordas T.M., Pelle- grino J.T. (2007), Short-term and long-term hearing aid benefit and user satisfaction: A comparison between two fitting protocols, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 482-495. open in new tab
  23. Tylor B. (2007), Self-report assessment of hearing aid outcome -An overview, from AudiologyOnline: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/self-report- assessment-hearing-aid-931 [accessed 6.07.2017].
  24. Valente M., Mispagel K.M. (2008), Unaided and aided performance with a directional open-fit hearing aid, International Journal of Audiology, 47, 329-336. open in new tab
  25. Wood S.A., Lutman M.E. (2004), Relative benefits of linear analogue and advanced digital hearing aids, International Journal of Audiology, 43, 144-155. open in new tab
  26. World Health Organization (1991), WHO Report of the Informal Working Group on Prevention of Deaf- ness and Hearing Impairment Programme Planning, Geneva, Switzerland. open in new tab
  27. Zhou T., Zeng Y., Wang R. (2017), Single-channel speech enhancement based on psychoacoustic masking, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 65, 4, doi: https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2017.0003. open in new tab
Verified by:
Gdańsk University of Technology

seen 94 times

Recommended for you

Combining MUSHRA Test and Fuzzy Logic in the Evaluation of Benefits of Using Hearing Prostheses

2023

The influence of time of hearing aid use on auditory perception in various acoustic situations

2018

Pursuing Analytically the Influence of Hearing Aid Use on Auditory Perception in Various Acoustic Situations

2022

WYKORZYSTANIE TESTU MUSHRA W BADANIU KORZYŚCI UŻYTKOWANIA PROTEZ SŁUCHOWYCH

2023
Meta Tags