TV listening and hearing aids.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Strelcyk O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6025866 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
TV listening plays a large role in the lives of hearing-impaired (HI) individuals. Yet, few studies have examined TV listening in this group. In this paper, we report the findings of an online survey on TV listening conducted among HI individuals with and without hearing aids (HAs) in the United States in 2015. The research investigated if and in what form TV listening experiences of unaided and aided HI individuals might differ with regard to their viewing habits, difficulties they experience, ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Subjective reports indicate that hearing aids can disrupt sound externalization and/or reduce the perceived distance of sounds. Here we conducted an experiment to explore this phenomenon and to quantify how frequently it occurs for different hearing-aid styles. Of particular interest were the effects of microphone position (behind the ear vs. in the ear) and dome type (closed vs. open). Participants were young adults with normal hearing or with bilateral hearing loss, who were fitted with hearing aids that allowed variations in the microphone position and the dome type. They were seated in a large sound-treated booth and presented with monosyllabic words from loudspeakers at a distance of 1.5 m. Their task was to rate the perceived externalization of each word using a rating scale that ranged from 10 (at the loudspeaker in front) to 0 (in the head) to -10 (behind the listener). On average, compared to unaided listening, hearing aids tended to reduce perceived distance and lead to more in-the-head responses. This was especially true for closed domes in combination with behind-the-ear microphones. The behavioral data along with acoustical recordings made in the ear canals of a manikin suggest that increased low-frequency ear-canal levels (with closed domes) and ambiguous spatial cues (with behind-the-ear microphones) may both contribute to breakdowns of externalization.
| S-EPMC10865954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cubick and Dau [(2016). Acta Acust. Acust. 102, 547-557] showed that speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise, obtained with normal-hearing listeners, were significantly higher with hearing aids (HAs) than without. Some listeners reported a change in their spatial perception of the stimuli due to the HA processing, with auditory images often being broader and closer to the head or even internalized. The current study investigated whether worse speech intelligibility with HAs might be explained by distorted spatial perception and the resulting reduced ability to spatially segregate the target speech from the interferers. SRTs were measured in normal-hearing listeners with or without HAs in the presence of three interfering talkers or speech-shaped noises. Furthermore, listeners were asked to sketch their spatial perception of the acoustic scene. Consistent with the previous study, SRTs increased with HAs. Spatial release from masking was lower with HAs than without. The effects were similar for noise and speech maskers and appeared to be accounted for by changes to energetic masking. This interpretation was supported by results from a binaural speech intelligibility model. Even though the sketches indicated a change of spatial perception with HAs, no direct link between spatial perception and segregation of talkers could be shown.
| S-EPMC6246072 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeThe aim of the study was to compare the user-rated benefit of two categories of hearing aids, mainly the basic and premium categories of hearing aids.MethodsA questionnaire was administered on 102 hearing aids users (47 basic and 55 premium category users) with severity of hearing loss ranging from mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss. The questionnaire administered was divided into mainly seven subscales which included speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise, ease of communication, the efficiency of noise reduction, localization, quality of music perception and cost effectiveness. The effect of duration of daily usage of hearing aids on performance among these different subscales was also assessed.ResultsEase of communication was rated better by premium hearing aid users, whereas the cost effectiveness was rated to be better by basic users. There was no significant difference observed between performances of basic versus premium category of hearing aids in other listening domains assessed. There was no significant difference in any of the listening domains with daily usage duration for both categories of hearing aid users.ConclusionThe users of premium category devices revealed better ease of communication in daily environments, whereas performance of these devices on other listening domains remains questionable. Cost effectiveness was reported to be better by the users of basic hearing aids. A prospective and controlled paired series comparison of hearing aid performance needs to be performed to confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC8762635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hearing in noise is a core problem in audition, and a challenge for hearing-impaired listeners, yet the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. We explored whether harmonic frequency relations, a signature property of many communication sounds, aid hearing in noise for normal hearing listeners. We measured detection thresholds in noise for tones and speech synthesized to have harmonic or inharmonic spectra. Harmonic signals were consistently easier to detect than otherwise identical inharmonic signals. Harmonicity also improved discrimination of sounds in noise. The largest benefits were observed for two-note up-down "pitch" discrimination and melodic contour discrimination, both of which could be performed equally well with harmonic and inharmonic tones in quiet, but which showed large harmonic advantages in noise. The results show that harmonicity facilitates hearing in noise, plausibly by providing a noise-robust pitch cue that aids detection and discrimination.
| S-EPMC8803411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesUnilateral hearing loss increases the risk of academic and behavioral challenges for school-aged children. Previous research suggests that remote microphone (RM) systems offer the most consistent benefits for children with unilateral hearing loss in classroom environments relative to other nonsurgical interventions. However, generalizability of previous laboratory work is limited because of the specific listening situations evaluated, which often included speech and noise signals originating from the side. In addition, early studies focused on speech recognition tasks requiring limited cognitive engagement. However, those laboratory conditions do not reflect characteristics of contemporary classrooms, which are cognitively demanding and typically include multiple talkers of interest in relatively diffuse background noise. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential effects of rerouting amplification systems, specifically a RM system and a contralateral routing of signal (CROS) system, on speech recognition and comprehension of school-age children in a laboratory environment designed to emulate the dynamic characteristics of contemporary classrooms. It was expected that listeners would benefit from the CROS system when the head shadow limits audibility (e.g., monaural indirect listening). It was also expected that listeners would benefit from the RM system only when the RM was near the talker of interest.DesignTwenty-one children (10 to 14 years, M = 11.86) with normal hearing participated in laboratory tests of speech recognition and comprehension. Unilateral hearing loss was simulated by presenting speech-shaped masking noise to one ear via an insert earphone. Speech stimuli were presented from 1 of 4 loudspeakers located at either 0°, +45°, -90°, and -135° or 0°, -45°, +90°, and +135°. Cafeteria noise was presented from separate loudspeakers surrounding the listener. Participants repeated sentences (sentence recognition) and also answered questions after listening to an unfamiliar story (comprehension). They were tested unaided, with a RM system (microphone near the front loudspeaker), and with a CROS system (ear-level microphone on the ear with simulated hearing loss).ResultsRelative to unaided listening, both rerouting systems reduced sentence recognition performance for most signals originating near the ear with normal hearing (monaural direct loudspeakers). Only the RM system improved speech recognition for midline signals, which were near the RM. Only the CROS system significantly improved speech recognition for signals originating near the ear with simulated hearing loss (monaural indirect loudspeakers). Although the benefits were generally small (approximately 6.5 percentage points), the CROS system also improved comprehension scores, which reflect overall listening across all four loudspeakers. Conversely, the RM system did not improve comprehension scores relative to unaided listening.ConclusionsBenefits of the CROS system in this study were small, specific to situations where speech is directed toward the ear with hearing loss, and relative only to a RM system utilizing one microphone. Although future study is warranted to evaluate the generalizability of the findings, the data demonstrate both CROS and RM systems are nonsurgical interventions that have the potential to improve speech recognition and comprehension for children with limited useable unilateral hearing in dynamic, noisy classroom situations.
| S-EPMC7117994 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe main clinical intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss is the provision of hearing aids. These are routinely offered and fitted to those who seek help for hearing difficulties. By amplifying and improving access to sounds, and speech sounds in particular, the aim of hearing aid use is to reduce the negative consequences of hearing loss and improve participation in everyday life.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.Search methodsThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; the Cochrane Register of Studies Online; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 March 2017.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hearing aids compared to a passive or active control in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes in this review were hearing-specific health-related quality of life and the adverse effect pain. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, listening ability and the adverse effect noise-induced hearing loss. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.Main resultsWe included five RCTs involving 825 participants. The studies were carried out in the USA and Europe, and were published between 1987 and 2017. Risk of bias across the studies varied. Most had low risk for selection, reporting and attrition bias, and a high risk for performance and detection bias because blinding was inadequate or absent.All participants had mild to moderate hearing loss. The average age across all five studies was between 69 and 83 years. The duration of the studies ranged between six weeks and six months.There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on hearing-specific health-related quality of life associated with participation in daily life as measured using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE, scale range 1 to 100) compared to the unaided/placebo condition (mean difference (MD) -26.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -42.16 to -10.77; 722 participants; three studies) (moderate-quality evidence).There was a small beneficial effect of hearing aids on general health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.21; 568 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on listening ability (SMD -1.88, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.52; 534 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence).Adverse effects were measured in only one study (48 participants) and none were reported (very low-quality evidence).Authors' conclusionsThe available evidence concurs that hearing aids are effective at improving hearing-specific health-related quality of life, general health-related quality of life and listening ability in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. The evidence is compatible with the widespread provision of hearing aids as the first-line clinical management in those who seek help for hearing difficulties. Greater consistency is needed in the choice of outcome measures used to assess benefits from hearing aids. Further placebo-controlled studies would increase our confidence in the estimates of these effects and ascertain whether they vary according to age, gender, degree of hearing loss and type of hearing aid.
| S-EPMC6483809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to compare elderly individuals who are hearing impaired but inexperienced in using hearing aids (hearing aid non-users; HA-NU) with their aided counterparts (hearing aid users; HA-U) across various auditory and non-auditory measures in order to identify differences that might be associated with the low hearing aid uptake rate. We have drawn data of 72 HA-NU and 139 HA-U with a mild-to-moderate hearing loss, and matched these two groups on the degree of hearing impairment, age, and sex. First, HA-NU and HA-U were compared across 65 auditory, cognitive, health-specific, and socioeconomic test measures as well as measures assessing technology commitment. Second, a logistic regression approach was performed to identify relevant predictors for using hearing aids. Finally, we conducted a sensitivity analysis for the matching approach. Group comparisons indicated that HA-NU perceive their hearing problem as less severe than their aided counterparts. Furthermore, HA-NU showed worse technology commitment and lower socioeconomic status than HA-U. The logistic regression revealed self-reported hearing performance, technology commitment, and the socioeconomic and health status as the most important predictors for using hearing aids.
| S-EPMC6243636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction The main function of hearing is to enable oral communication. Hearing loss impairs communication skills. Objective To evaluate the level of user satisfaction with hearing aids. Methods This is a cross-sectional group study comprising 108 subjects (56% men and 44% women). The average age of the subjects was 77 years. These subjects had been recently fitted with their hearing aids and showed sensorineural (90%) and mixed (10%) hearing loss as determined via the Questionnaire International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids Outcome Inventory (IOI-HA), which determined the benefit and satisfaction obtained by sound amplification. Results The hearing aids improved the quality of life of 52.78% of the patients, which was revealed by their high scores (mean = 27.3). The relationship of the user with the environment was significantly better (p < 0.001) than that of the user with the hearing aid. Conclusion IOI-HA is a simple and easy-to-use tool. Based on the results of this study, we can show a high degree of satisfaction with their hearing aids in the majority of the participants, which improved the quality of life.
| S-EPMC4296999 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesWe developed a framework for objectively comparing hearing aids, independent of brand, type, or product family. This was done using a large dataset of commercially available hearing aids. To achieve this, we investigated which hearing aid features are suitable for comparison, and are also relevant for the rehabilitation of hearing impairment. To compare hearing aids objectively, we distinguished populations of hearing aids based on a set of key hearing aid features. Finally, we describe these hearing aid subpopulations so that these could potentially be used as a supporting tool for the selection of an appropriate hearing aid.DesignIn this study, we used technical (meta-)data from 3911 hearing aids (available on the Dutch market in March 2018). The dataset contained about 50 of the most important characteristics of a hearing aid. After cleaning and handling the data via a well-defined knowledge discovery in database procedure, a total 3083 hearing aids were included. Subsequently, a set of well-defined key hearing aid features were used as input for further analysis. The data were split into an in-the-ear style hearing aid subset and a behind-the-ear style subset, for separate analyses. The knowledge discovery in databases procedure was also used as an objective guiding tool for applying an exploratory cluster analysis to expose subpopulations of hearing aids within the dataset. The latter was done using Latent Class Tree Analysis, which is an extension to the better-known Latent Class Analysis clustering method: with the important addition of a hierarchical structure.ResultsA total of 10 hearing aid features were identified as relevant for audiological rehabilitation: compression, sound processing, noise reduction (NR), expansion, wind NR, impulse (noise) reduction, active feedback management, directionality, NR environments, and ear-to-ear communication. These features had the greatest impact on results yielded by the Latent Class Tree cluster analysis. At the first level in the hierarchical cluster model, the two subpopulations of hearing aids could be divided into 3 main branches, mainly distinguishable by the overall availability or technology level of hearing aid features. Higher-level results of the cluster analysis yielded a set of mutually exclusive hearing aid populations, called modalities. In total, nine behind-the-ear and seven in-the-ear modalities were found. These modalities were characterized by particular profiles of (complex) interplay between the selected key features. A technical comparison of features (e.g., implementation) is beyond the scope of this research.ConclusionsCombining a large dataset of hearing aids with a probabilistic hierarchical clustering method enables analysis of hearing aid characteristics which extends beyond product families and manufacturers. Furthermore, this study found that the resulting hearing aid modalities can be thought of as a generic alternative to the manufacturer-dependent proprietary "concepts," and could potentially aid the selection of an appropriate hearing aid for technical rehabilitation. This study is in line with a growing need for justification of hearing aid selection and the increasing demand for evidence-based practice.
| S-EPMC7722464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence of real acoustic stimulation. In the current absence of a cure for tinnitus, clinical management typically focuses on reducing the effects of co-morbid symptoms such as distress or hearing loss. Hearing loss is commonly co-morbid with tinnitus and so logic implies that amplification of external sounds by hearing aids will reduce perception of the tinnitus sound and the distress associated with it.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of hearing aids specifically in terms of tinnitus benefit in patients with tinnitus and co-existing hearing loss.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 19 August 2013.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials recruiting adults with subjective tinnitus and some degree of hearing loss, where the intervention involves amplification with hearing aids and this is compared to interventions involving other medical devices, other forms of standard or complementary therapy, or combinations of therapies, no intervention or placebo interventions.Data collection and analysisThree authors independently screened all selected abstracts. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed those potentially suitable studies for risk of bias. For studies meeting the inclusion criteria, we used the mean difference (MD) to compare hearing aids with other interventions and controls.Main resultsOne randomised controlled trial (91 participants) was included in this review. We judged the trial to have a low risk of bias for method of randomisation and outcome reporting, and an unclear risk of bias for other criteria. No non-randomised controlled trials meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. The included study measured change in tinnitus severity (primary measure of interest) using a tinnitus questionnaire measure, and change in tinnitus loudness (secondary measure of interest) on a visual analogue scale. Other secondary outcome measures of interest, namely change in the psychoacoustic characteristics of tinnitus, change in self reported anxiety, depression and quality of life, and change in neurophysiological measures, were not investigated in this study. The included study compared hearing aid use to sound generator use. The estimated effect on change in tinnitus loudness or severity as measured by the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory score was compatible with benefits for both hearing aids or sound generators but no difference was found between the two alternative treatments (MD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.92 to 6.12) (100-point scale); moderate quality evidence. No negative or adverse events were reported.Authors' conclusionsThe current evidence base for hearing aid prescription for tinnitus is limited. To be useful, future studies should make appropriate use of blinding and be consistent in their use of outcome measures. Whilst hearing aids are sometimes prescribed as part of tinnitus management, there is currently no evidence to support or refute their use as a more routine intervention for tinnitus.
| S-EPMC10559339 | biostudies-literature