Factors in Subjective Hearing Disability

Kramer, Sophia E.; Kapteyn, T. S.; Festen, Joost Μ.; Tobi, Hilde

doi:10.3109/00206099509071921

Cited by 123 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…16 This is a 28-item patient-reported questionnaire that assesses everyday listening ability with 5 main subscales: detection, distinction/recognition, localization of sounds, intelligibility of speech in noise, and intelligibility of speech in quiet. Answers range from "almost never" (score of 3 points) to "almost always" (0 points), scored on a 4-point scale, with a higher score denoting higher disability The questionnaire was administered to subjects before testing.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Reported Auditory Functions After Stroke of the Central Auditory Pathway

Bamiou

Werring

Cox

et al. 2012

Stroke

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose-Auditory functional limitations experienced by patients after stroke of the central auditory pathways remain underinvestigated. Purpose-To measure patient-reported hearing difficulties in everyday life in nonaphasic patients with stroke of the auditory brain versus normal control subjects. To examine how hearing difficulties correlate with auditory tests and site of lesion in individual cases. Methods-We recruited 21 individuals with auditory brain stroke (excluding those with aphasia) diagnosed on the basis of a brain MRI conducted 1 to 2 weeks after the stroke and assessed in the chronic stage of stroke. Twenty-three controls matched for age and hearing were also recruited. All subjects completed the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability (consisting of subscales of sound detection, recognition, localization, speech in quiet, speech in noise) and underwent baseline audiometry and central auditory processing tests (dichotic digits, frequency and duration patterns, gaps in noise). Results-Sound recognition and localization subscores of the inventory were significantly worse in case subjects versus control subjects, with severe and significant functional limitation (z score Ͼ3) reported by 9 out of 21 case subjects. None of the inventory subscales correlated with audiometric thresholds, but localization and recognition subscales showed a moderate to strong correlation with dichotic digits (left ear) and pattern tests.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-Reported Auditory Functions After Stroke of the Central Auditory Pathway

Bamiou

Werring

Cox

et al. 2012

Stroke

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A direct comparison between both hearing aid settings was performed by means of a shortened version of the AVETA (Amsterdanse Vragenlijst voor Eén en Tweezijdige Aanpassingen-A validated Dutch Questionnaire for unilateral and bilateral hearing aid fittings) questionnaire (Boymans, 2003), a questionnaire that was partly based on existing questionnaires such as the Amsterdam Inventory of Auditory Disability and Handicap (AIADH; Kramer, Kapteyn, Festen, & Tobi, 1995) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; Cox & Alexander, 1995). Based on 18 questions, outcome values were obtained for detection, discrimination, speech in quiet, speech in noise, localization, and aversion to loud sounds.…”

Section: Evaluation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiologist-Driven Versus Patient-Driven Fine Tuning of Hearing Instruments

Boymans

Dreschler

2011

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two methods of fine tuning the initial settings of hearing aids were compared: An audiologist-driven approach--using real ear measurements and a patient-driven fine-tuning approach--using feedback from real-life situations. The patient-driven fine tuning was conducted by employing the Amplifit ® II system using audiovideo clips. The audiologist-driven fine tuning was based on the NAL-NL1 prescription rule. Both settings were compared using the same hearing aids in two 6-week trial periods following a randomized blinded cross-over design. After each trial period, the settings were evaluated by insertion-gain measurements. Performance was evaluated by speech tests in quiet, in noise, and in time-reversed speech, presented at 0° and with spatially separated sound sources. Subjective results were evaluated using extensive questionnaires and audiovisual video clips. A total of 73 participants were included. On average, higher gain values were found for the audiologist-driven settings than for the patient-driven settings, especially at 1000 and 2000 Hz. Better objective performance was obtained for the audiologist-driven settings for speech perception in quiet and in time-reversed speech. This was supported by better scores on a number of subjective judgments and in the subjective ratings of video clips. The perception of loud sounds scored higher than when patient-driven, but the overall preference was in favor of the audiologist-driven settings for 67% of the participants.

show abstract

“…First, although the instruments have different names, many of them have very similar items. Second, in the studies where the reliability of the questionnaire has been evaluated (Flamme et al, 1999;Kramer et al, 1995;Noble and Atherley, 1970) (Erdman, 1994;Erdman and Demorest, 1998;Swan and Gatehouse, 1990). Moderate correlations are regularly obtained between psychophysically measured estimates of SS hearing (i.e., pure tone thresholds) and hearing disability and handicap.…”

Section: Direction and Distance Hearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Self-report methods have also been used to estimate DD hearing ability (Flamme et al, 1999;Kramer et al, 1995;Noble and Atherley, 1970;Noble et al, 1995). There are a few commonalities among the questionnaires used in these studies.…”

Section: Direction and Distance Hearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Flamme

2001

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factors in Subjective Hearing Disability

Cited by 123 publications

References 17 publications

Patient-Reported Auditory Functions After Stroke of the Central Auditory Pathway

Patient-Reported Auditory Functions After Stroke of the Central Auditory Pathway

Audiologist-Driven Versus Patient-Driven Fine Tuning of Hearing Instruments

Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About