BackgroundSubjective tinnitus is the perception of sound in the absence of a corresponding external sound for which there is no known medical etiology. For a minority of individuals with tinnitus, the condition impacts their ability to lead a normal lifestyle and is severely debilitating. There is no known cure for tinnitus, so current therapy focuses on reducing the effect of tinnitus on the patient’s quality of life. Tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) uses nonpsychiatric tinnitus-specific educational counseling and sound therapy in a habituation-based protocol to reduce the patient’s tinnitus-evoked negative reaction to, and awareness of, the tinnitus, with the ultimate goal of reducing the tinnitus impact on the patient’s quality of life. Some studies support the efficacy of TRT, but no trial to date has compared TRT with the current standard of care or evaluated the separate contributions of TRT counseling and sound therapy. The Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial (TRTT) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial for individuals with intolerable tinnitus.Methods/designThe TRTT is enrolling active-duty and retired military personnel and their dependents with functionally adequate hearing sensitivity and severe tinnitus at US Air Force, Navy, and Army medical centers. Eligible study participants are randomized to TRT, partial TRT, or standard care to determine the efficacy of TRT and its components (TRT counseling and sound therapy). The primary outcome is change in score on the Tinnitus Questionnaire assessed longitudinally between baseline and follow-up (3, 6, 12, and 18 months following treatment). Secondary outcomes include subscale score changes in the Tinnitus Questionnaire, overall and subscale score changes in the Tinnitus Functional Index and Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, and change in the visual analog scale of the TRT Interview Form. Audiological outcomes include tinnitus pitch and loudness match and measures of loudness discomfort levels. The incidence of depression as a safety measure is assessed at each visit using the Beck Depression Inventory Fast Screen.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01177137.

Purpose A growing body of evidence suggests that military service members and military veterans are at risk for deficits in central auditory processing. Risk factors include exposure to blast, neurotrauma, hazardous noise, and ototoxicants. We overview these risk factors and comorbidities, address implications for clinical assessment and care of central auditory processing deficits in service members and veterans, and specify knowledge gaps that warrant research. Method We reviewed the literature to identify studies of risk factors, assessment, and care of central auditory processing deficits in service members and veterans. We also assessed the current state of the science for knowledge gaps that warrant additional study. This literature review describes key findings relating to military risk factors and clinical considerations for the assessment and care of those exposed. Conclusions Central auditory processing deficits are associated with exposure to known military risk factors. Research is needed to characterize mechanisms, sources of variance, and differential diagnosis in this population. Existing best practices do not explicitly consider confounds faced by military personnel. Assessment and rehabilitation strategies that account for these challenges are needed. Finally, investment is critical to ensure that Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense clinical staff are informed, trained, and equipped to implement effective patient care. Infographic https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12071232

Objectives: One important function of military audiology is to conduct evaluations of service members (SMs) with hearing loss to ensure they are fit for deployment in dangerous operational environments. The objective of this study was to establish evidence-based auditory fitness-for-duty criteria based on speech-in-noise performance on the 80- and 160-word clinical versions of the Modified Rhyme Test (MRT80 and MRT160). Design: Approximately 2400 SMs with various levels of hearing loss were recruited to complete the MRT80 in conjunction with their annual hearing conservation evaluations. These SMs were also asked to perform one or more operationally-relevant listening tasks based on audio recordings made in highly realistic military training environments. The scores on these tests were compared to determine how well a proposed cutoff criterion for the MRT80 was able to identify individuals who are hard of hearing with an exceptionally high risk of abnormally poor performance on operationally-relevant hearing tasks. Results: The results show that a cutoff criterion that combines the percent correct score on two lists of the MRT80 (i.e. MRT160) with information about the better-ear threshold at 2 kHz is generally able to separate listeners with hearing loss into those who are likely to perform relatively well on operational listening tests and those who are likely to perform poorly on these tasks. This is consistent with current military acquisition standards, which identify the MRT as the preferred test for evaluating speech intelligibility for radios, headsets, and other communication equipment. It is also consistent with prior studies conducted in high-fidelity military simulations which have shown a significant correlation between MRT performance and operational outcomes. Conclusions: The proposed selection criteria, along with the new hearing profile standards that were recently adopted by the US Army, appear to provide an effective evidence-based methodology for identifying those SMs with hearing loss who are most at risk for poor performance on hearing-critical military tasks.