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

• Autorzy: Poremski Tomasz , Szymański Piotr , Kostek Bożena

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/aoa.2019.129727

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

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 short-term (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.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

hearing aid; APHAB; Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit; assessment of hearing aid benefit; hearing loss; evaluation of hearing aid use

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki PAN ; Komitet Akustyki PAN ; Polskie Towarzystwo Akustyczne
• Czasopismo: Archives of Acoustics
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 44, No. 4
• Strony: 719--729
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 28 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Poremski Tomasz

• Training, Research and Development Department, GEERS Hearing Acoustics Ltd., Łódź, Poland

autor

Szymański Piotr

• Audiology Support Center, GEERS Hearing Acoustics Ltd., Łódź, Poland

autor

Kostek Bożena

• Audio Acoustics Laboratory, Faculty of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics, Gdańsk University of Technology, Gdańsk, Poland

Bibliografia

• 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].
• 2. Cochran W. G. (1952), The chi-square goodness-of-fit test, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 315-345.
• 3. Cox R. M. (1997), Administration and application of the APHAB, The Hearing Journal, 50, 32, 35-36, 38, 40-41, 44-45, 48.
• 4. Cox R. M. (1999), Measuring hearing aid outcomes: Part 1, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, Editorial.
• 5. Cox R. M., Alexander G. C. (1995), The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit, Ear and Hearing, 16, 176-186.
• 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.
• 8. Dillon H., James A., Ginis J. (1997), Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 8, 27-43.
• 9. Hojan E. (2014), Hearing prosthetics [in Polish: Protetyka 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 Societz, Paper No: 8447, London.
• 11. Humes L. E. (1999), Dimensions of hearing aid outcome, 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.
• 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 processing methods applied to hearing aids, Signal processing algorithms, architectures, arrangements, and applications, SPA 2016, pp. 219-224, Poznań, Poland, 21-23.09.2016.
• 15. Kuklasiński A., Jensen J. (2017), Multichannel Wiener filters in binaural and bilateral hearing aids – speech intelligibility improvement and robustness to DoA errors, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 65, 1/2, 8-16, doi: https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2016.0060.
• 16. Littmann V., Beilin J., Froehlich M., Branda E., Schäfer P. J. (2016), Clinical studies show advanced 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/ [accessed June 2018].
• 17. Löhler J., Akcicek B., Wollenberg B., Kappe 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.
• 18. Löhler J., Gräbner F., Wollenberg B., Schalttmann 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.
• 19. McArdel R., Chisolm T. H., Abrams H. B., Wilson R. H., Doyle P. J. (2005), The WHO-DAS II: measuring outcomes of hearing aid intervention for adults, Trends in Amplification, 9, 127-143.
• 20. Mendel L. L. (2009), Subjective and Objective Measures of Hearing Aid Outcome, from AudiologyOnline: www.audiologyonline.com/articles/subjective-and-objective-measures-hearing-891 [accessed 7.07.2017].
• 21. 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.
• 22. Schafer P. J. et al. (2015), Evaluation of an objective listening effort measure in a selective, multi-speaker listening task using different hearing aid settings, Conference Proceedings of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, August 2015, pp. 4647-4650, Milan, Italy, doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319430.
• 23. Shi L.-F., Doherty K. A., Kordas T. M., Pellegrino 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.
• 24. 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].
• 25. Valente M., Mispagel K. M. (2008), Unaided and aided performance with a directional open-fit hearing aid, International Journal of Audiology, 47, 329-336.
• 26. Wood S. A., Lutman M. E. (2004), Relative benefits of linear analogue and advanced digital hearing aids, International Journal of Audiology, 43, 144-155.
• 27. World Health Organization (1991), WHO Report of the Informal Working Group on Prevention of Deafness and Hearing Impairment Programme Planning, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 28. 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.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).