+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Practical hearing compensation and an assessment of hearing effect in patients with profound hearing loss using hearing aids

Practical hearing compensation and an assessment of hearing effect in patients with profound hearing loss using hearing aids

Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho 96(3): 466-477

This investigation was carried out to study practical hearing compensation with hearing aids and the correlation between subjective evaluation (questionnaire survey) and objective evaluation (speech perception test) as an assessment of hearing aid effect in patients with profound hearing loss. 1. Forty-nine patients with hearing levels of 90dB or more (23 men and 26 women) were examined. Their mean and median hearing levels were 105.9dB (standard deviation: 10.4dB) and 106.3dB, respectively. The patients ranged in age from 18 to 74, with a mean age of 47.4. 2. Subjective evaluation was carried out by a questionnaire survey in which the patients chose one of 4 or 5 graded categories in 10 different hearing conditions, and three items of "satisfactory", "uneasiness" and "effectiveness". Speech sound discrimination ability for vowels and monosyllables, and speech intelligibility of words and sentences, were evaluated in audition only (A), vision only (V) and a combination of both (A + V), totaling 12 conditions with hearing aids as the objective evaluation using video tapes materials. 3. The subjective evaluation revealed that 60% of patients with hearing loss of 90-110dB understood "one to one conversation in a quiet place". Speech perception was poorer in "conversation in a noisy place" than in "conversation in a quiet place". Speech perception became poorer in the order of "one to one", "to a few people", and "to many people". For subjective feeling, 56.4% answered "satisfactory", and for hearing aid effectiveness, 78.7% answered "effective". 4. In the objective evaluation, the rates of correct answers were 19.6% in A and 46.3% in A + V for monosyllables, 19.8% in A and 43.4% in A + V for words, and 29.5% in A and 60.0% in A+V for sentences. 5. There were significant correlations (p < 0.001) between subjective evaluation of "in a quiet place and one to one conversation" (among other conditions) and objective evaluations of monosyllables, and word and sentence recognition, mostly in A and A + V. These results suggest that hearing compensation by hearing aids can be evaluated objectively in patients with profound hearing loss when word and sentence recognition tests are performed in addition to the monosyllable recognition test, and it is more practical if vision is examined in addition to hearing for speech perception in patients with profound hearing loss.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 047031795

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 8473958

DOI: 10.3950/jibiinkoka.96.466

Related references

Analysis of hearing improvement in patients with severe to profound sudden sensorineural hearing loss according to the level of pure tone hearing threshold. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 269(9): 2057-2060, 2013

Update on bone-anchored hearing aids in pediatric patients with profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Archives of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery 136(2): 175-177, 2010

Benefits of active middle ear implants over hearing aids in patients with sloping high tone hearing loss: comparison with hearing aids. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica 37(3): 218-223, 2018

Comparison of the residual hearing on the profound hearing-impaired children with the hearing aids and cochlear implants. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 24(24): 1123-1125, 2011

Working Memory, Sleep, and Hearing Problems in Patients with Tinnitus and Hearing Loss Fitted with Hearing Aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 28(2): 141-151, 2018

Self-reported disability and handicap after hearing-aid fitting and benefit of hearing aids: comparison of fitting procedures, degree of hearing loss, experience with hearing aids and uni- and bilateral fittings. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 266(6): 907-917, 2008

Are Open-Fit Hearing Aids a Possible Alternative to Bone-Anchored Hearing Devices in Patients with Mild to Severe Hearing Loss? A Preliminary Trial. Audiology Research 3(1): E2, 2013

Relationship between age of hearing-loss onset, hearing-loss duration, and speech recognition in individuals with severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 12(4): 519-534, 2011

A cross-sectional study of speech- and language-abilities of children with normal hearing, mild fluctuating conductive hearing loss, or moderate to profound sensoneurinal hearing loss. International Journal Of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 44(3): 251-258,. 10, 1998

Social hearing measured with the Performance Inventory for Profound and Severe Loss: a comparison between adult multichannel cochlear implant patients and users of acoustical hearing aids. International Journal of Audiology 43(10): 572-578, 2005

Assistive technologies for severe and profound hearing loss: Beyond hearing aids and implants. Assistive Technology 2019: 1-12, 2019

Comparison of speech discrimination in noise and directional hearing with 2 different sound processors of a bone-anchored hearing system in adults with unilateral severe or profound sensorineural hearing loss. Otology and Neurotology 34(6): 1064-1070, 2014

Principle requirements of an electromechanical transducer for implantable hearing aids in inner hearing hearing loss. II: Clinical aspects. Hno 45(10): 787-791, 1998

Semi-implantable hearing aids for sensorineural hearing loss and combined hearing loss: experiences at the German Armed Forces Hospital in Ulm. Hno 57(3): 208-215, 2009

The hearing performance inventory and hearing aid use in profound hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 23(2): 470-479, 1980