Development of APHAB Norms for WDRC Hearing Aids and Comparisons with Original Norms

Abstract

Overall, problems understanding amplified speech did not decrease in frequency when hearing aids transitioned from linear to compression processing; however, the compression capabilities of current hearing aids (with a possible contribution from noise reduction algorithms) have resulted in less negative reactions to amplified environmental sounds. This suggests that modern technology has ameliorated (to some extent) the common complaint that hearing aids cause many everyday sounds to become objectionably loud. Although the results of this study suggest that the advantages of improved technology do not lie in the domains of improved subjective speech communication performance, substantial improvement in the rate of successful adjustment to hearing aids between the 1995 and 2005 subject groups provides evidence that modern hearing aid technology has produced progress in other outcome domains.

Sounds perceived as annoying by hearing-aid users in their daily soundscape

“…However, complaints of high-level sounds is not unique to the current clinic and similar problems are reported worldwide with modern hearing aids giving negative effects and problems when coping with environmental sounds (Johnson et al, 2010, Kochkin, 2010. The…”

Factors Affecting Auditory Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: An Update with 2251 Patients

“…In both datasets, the effect of age at onset begins at around age 60, but the magnitude of the effect was larger in 1996 than in 2011. On the one hand, we may speculate that the amount of natural peripheral and central degradation might have been reduced in 2011 by more frequent use of hearing aids in the period preceding severe to profound hearing loss, encouraged by improved sound quality and speech understanding [Blamey, 2005;Johnson et al, 2010;McDermott, 2011]. Alternatively, the greater information content and processing improvements in the CI devices used by the 2011 group may have imposed less cognitive and auditory processing load than the earlier devices and therefore the effects of natural cognitive degradation were reduced for the 2011 group.…”

“…We speculate that these factors are all needed to explain the data. Patient differences are likely to have arisen because of relaxation of CI patient selection criteria [Cullen et al, 2004;Dooley et al, 1993;Kiefer et al, 1998;Lenarz, 1998;Rubinstein et al, 1999], and because of improvements in the management of hearing loss during stage 2 of the model, such as improvements in hearing aid technology [Blamey, 2005;Johnson et al, 2010;McDermott, 2011]. Evidence for differences between the patients in the two studies can be seen in figure 3 a where the median duration of severe to profound hearing loss was about 8 years in the 1996 dataset and 4 years in the 2011 dataset.…”

“…The proportion of candidates for a CI with long durations of profound deafness should be smaller, because patients are being operated on earlier in the time course of their deafness. Thus, compared to the 1996 study, the proportion of speech scores in the high range, preoperatively and postoperatively, is likely to be greater nowadays, and the effect of duration of severe to profound deafness may be less strong in the CI population in light of greater residual hearing and improved hearing aid technology prior to cochlear implantation [Blamey, 2005;Johnson et al, 2010;McDermott, 2011]. Nowadays, meningitis (bacterial labyrinthitis) and temporal bone fracture are considered 'surgical emergencies'.…”

Klinische Ergebnisse bei der Anwendung des APHAB (deutsche Version) in der Hörgeräteversorgung

“…"Schwindel" (Dizziness Handicap Inventory, [6]) und "Tinnitus" (Tinnitusfragebogen nach Göbel und Hiller, [7]), aber auch zur Bewertung des Hörver-mögens im Alltag (z. B. Oldenburger Inventar, [8]; APHAB, [9,10,11]). Mit Frageninventaren zum Hörvermögen kön-nen verschiedene Aspekte erfasst werden: Der wahrscheinliche Nutzen einer Hörgeräteversorgung, die persönliche Zufriedenheit eines Patienten mit seinen Hörgeräten, die Verminderung seines Behinderungsgrads und die Akzeptanz der Hörgeräte.…”