ABSTRACT
Previous studies have shown a general trend of poorer performance with hearing aids as a treatment option for hearing loss in older patients. Much of the predictive relationship between the presenting symptom of hearing loss and eventual outcome of the intervention used is attributable to variables other than those that can be addressed by the technology level of amplification selected for the patient. The patient's attitude, personality, denial of the problem, and even age are among the strongest determinants of success with hearing aids and other forms of nonmedical treatment of hearing loss. In addition, the age-related declines in higher level auditory processing are highly variable across patients and are, in fact, not evaluated in standard diagnostic audiologic test batteries. In this article, the use of additional or alternative diagnostic test methods, or both, is discussed as they relate to the older patient.
KEYWORDS
Elderly - hearing aids - bilateral - unilateral - binaural - speech-in-noise
REFERENCES
-
1 Tillman T W, Carhart R. An Expanded Test for Speech Discrimination Using CNC Monosyllabic Words: Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. Technical Report SAM-TR-66-55. Brooks Air Force Base, TX; USAF School of Aerospace Medicine 1966
-
2
Walden B, Schwartz D, Montgomery A, Prosek R.
A comparison of the effects of hearing impairment and acoustic filtering on consonant recognition.
J Speech Hear Res.
1981;
24
32-43
-
3 Dillon H. Binaural and bilateral considerations in hearing aid fitting. In: Dillon H Hearing Aids. New York; Thieme 2001: 370-403
-
4
Walden T, Walden B.
Predicting success with hearing aids in everyday living.
J Am Acad Audiol.
2004;
15
342-352
-
5
Plomp R.
Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids.
J Acoust Soc Am.
1978;
63
533-549
-
6
Killion M.
New thinking on hearing in noise: a generalized articulation index.
Semin Hear.
2002;
23
57-76
-
7
Frisina D, Frisina R.
Speech recognition in noise and presbycusis: relations to possible neural mechanisms.
Hear Res.
1997;
106
95-104
-
8
Carter A S, Noe C M, Wilson R H.
Listeners who prefer monaural to binaural aids.
J Am Acad Audiol.
2001;
12
261-272
-
9
Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons P J.
Effects of stimulus and noise rate variability on speech perception by younger and older adults.
J Acoust Soc Am.
2004;
115
1808-1817
-
10
Snell K, Frisina D.
Relationships among age-related differences in gap detection and word recognition.
J Acoust Soc Am.
2000;
107
1615-1626
-
11
Pichora-Fuller M K.
Cognitive aging and auditory information processing.
Int J Audiol.
2003;
42(Suppl 2)
26-32
-
12
Walden T, Walden B.
Unilateral versus bilateral amplification for adults with impaired hearing.
J Am Acad Audiol.
2005;
16
574-584
-
13
Chmiel R, Jerger J, Murphy E, Pirozzolo F, Tooley-Young C.
Unsuccessful use of binaural amplification by an elderly person.
J Am Acad Audiol.
1997;
8
1-10
-
14
Jerger J, Silman S, Lew H L, Chmiel R.
Case studies in binaural interference: converging evidence from behavioral and electrophysiologic measures.
J Am Acad Audiol.
1993;
4
122-131
-
15
Gatehouse S.
Rehabilitation: identification of needs, priorities and expectations, and the evaluation of benefit.
Int J Audiol.
2003;
42(Suppl 2)
377-383
-
16
Killion M, Niquette P, Gudmundsen G, Revit L, Banerjee S.
Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.
J Acoust Soc Am.
2004;
116
2395-2405
Therese C WaldenAu.D.
Audiology Clinic, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Army Audiology and Speech Center, Heaton Pavilion, 6th Floor
Rm 6A61, 6900 Georgia Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20307-5001
Email: therese.walden@na.amedd.army.mil
