Hearing Aid Benefit in Patients with High-Frequency Hearing Loss

Abstract

Patients with hearing loss limited to frequencies above 2 kHz are often considered borderline candidates for hearing aids. In this study, we used the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit to access 134 patients' perceived benefit with a variety of linear hearing aids, some more capable than others at achieving prescribed frequency gain targets. We also sought to explore various audiologic and subject factors that might have led patients to report different degrees of success or failure with their hearing aids. Results demonstrate that subjects with hearing loss limited to frequencies above 2 kHz benefit significantly from amplification. However, the amount of benefit reported is mostly unrelated to the hearing aid gain and frequency response. Of numerous audiologic and demographic factors explored in the present study, the number of hours of hearing aid use per day turned out to be the most important single factor that was significantly related to the amount of reported hearing aid benefit. However, the predictive value of knowing how many hours per day subjects wore their aids, or any other combination of factors explored, was quite limited and only accounted for a small amount of the variability observed in user benefit.

Abbreviations: AASC = Army Audiology and Speech Center, ANOVA = analysis of variance, AR = aural rehabilitation, AV = PHAB subscale Aversiveness, BN = PHAB subscale Background Noise, BTE = behind-the-ear hearing aid, DS = PHAB subscale Distortion, EC = PHAB subscale Ease of Communication, FT = PHAB subscale Familiar Talker, ITE = in-the-ear hearing aid, NAL-R = National Acoustic Laboratories-Revised presciptive hearing aid fitting formula, PHAB = Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, RC = PHAB subscale Reduced Cues, RV = PHAB subscale Reverberation

Key Words

Gain and frequency response - hearing aid benefit - hearing questionnaire - prescriptive formula

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
13. April 2022

• REFERENCES

• Abrams HB, Hnath-Chisolm Τ, Guerreiro SM, Ritterman SI. (1992). The effects of intervention strategy on self-perception of hearing handicap. Ear Hear 13:371–377.
• American National Standards Institute. (1989). Specifications for Audiometers. (S3.6–1989). New York: ANSI.
• Annianson G. (1974). Methods for assessing high frequency hearing loss in everyday listening situations. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh) 320:1–50.
• Bratt G, Sammeth CA. (1991). Clinical implications of prescriptive formula for hearing aid fitting. In: Studebaker GA, Bess FH, Beck L, eds. The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II. Parkton, MD: York Press, 23–34.
• Brooks DN. (1979). Counseling and its effects on hearing aid use. Scand Audiol 8:101–107.
• Byrne D. (1996). Hearing aid selection for the 1990s: where to? J Am Acad Audiol 7:377–395.
• Byrne D, Cotton S. (1988). Evaluation of the National Acoustic Laboratories' new hearing aid selection procedure. J Speech Hear Res 31:178–186.
• Byrne D, Dillon H. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 7:257–265.
• Cox R, Alexander G. (1983). Acoustic versus electronic modifications of hearing aid low-frequency output. Ear Hear 4:4–9.
• Cox RM, Gilmore C. (1990). Development of the profile of hearing aid performance (PHAP). J Speech Hear Res 33:343–357.
• Cox RM, Rivera IM. (1992). Predictability and reliability of hearing aid benefit measured using the PHAB. J Am Acad Audiol 3:242–254.
• Ewersten HW. (1974). Use of hearing aids (always, often, rarely, never). Scand Audiol 3:173–174.
• Grover BC, Martin MC. (1979). Physical and subjective correlates of earmold occlusion. Audiology 18:335–350.
• Haggard MP, Foster JR, Iredale FE. (1981). Use and benefit of postural aids in sensory hearing loss. Scand Audiol 10:45–52.
• Hogan CA, Turner CW. (1998). High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1:432–441.
• Humes LE, Hackett T. (1990). Comparison of frequency response and speech recognition performance for hearing aid selected by three different prescriptive methods. J Am Acad Audiol 1:101–108.
• Hutton CL. (1983). Hearing aid wear times for planning and intervention in aural rehabilitation. J Acad Rehabil Audiol 16:182–201.
• Kaptyen TS. (1977a). Satisfaction with fitted hearing aids: I. An analysis of technical information. Scand Audiol 6:147–156.
• Kaptyen TS. (1977b). Satisfaction with fitted hearing aids: II. An investigation into the influence of psycho-social factors. Scand Audiol 6:171–177.
• Killion MC. (1988). An "acoustically invisible" hearing aid. Hear Instr 39:40–44.
• Mueller HG, Bryant MP, Brown WD, Budinger AC. (1991). Hearing aid selection for high frequency hearing loss. In: Studebaker GA, Bess FH, Beck L, eds. The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II. Parkton, MD: York Press, 269–286.
• Oja GL, Schow RL. (1984). Hearing aid evaluation based on measures of benefit, use, and satisfaction. Ear Hear 5:77–86.
• Sammeth CA, Preves DA, Bratt GW, Peek BF, Bess FH. (1993). Achieving prescribed gain/frequency responses with advances in hearing aid technology. J Rehabil Res Dev 30:1–7.
• Schum DJ. (1992). Response of elderly hearing aid users on the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory. J Am Acad Audiol 3:308–314.
• Schum DJ. (1999). Perceived hearing aid benefit in relation to perceived needs. J Am Acad Audiol 10:40–45.
• Skafte MD. (1999). The 1998 hearing instrument market—the dispenser's perspective. Hear Rev 6:6—36.
• Smoorenburg GF. (1992). Speech reception in quiet and noisy conditions by individuals with noise induced hearing loss in relation to the tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am 91:421–437.
• Surr RK, Schuchman GI, Montgomery AA. (1978). Factors influencing use of hearing aids. Arch Otolaryngol 104:732–736.
• Van Vliet D. (1999). Is there a hearing aid that can. . .? Hear J 52:100.