Placebo effects in hearing-aid trials are reliable

The effect of auditory training on listening effort in hearing-aid users: insights from a pupillometry study

OBJECTIVE

The study investigated how auditory training affects effort exerted by hearing-impaired listeners in speech-in-noise task.

DESIGN

Pupillometry was used to characterise listening effort during a hearing in noise test (HINT) before and after phoneme-in-noise identification training. Half of the study participants completed the training, while the other half formed an active control group.

STUDY SAMPLE

Twenty 63-to-79 years old experienced hearing-aid users.

RESULTS

Higher peak pupil dilations (PPDs) were obtained at the end of the study compared to the beginning in both groups of the participants. The analysis of pupil dilation in an extended time window revealed, however, that the magnitude of pupillary response increased more in the training than in the control group. The effect of training on effort was observed in pupil responses even when no improvement in HINT was found.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate that using a listening effort metric adds additional insights into the effectiveness of auditory training compared to the situation when only speech-in-noise performance is considered. Trends observed in pupil responses suggested increased effort-both after the training and the placebo intervention-most likely reflecting the effect of the individual's motivation.

Speech Perception Ability and Subjective Satisfaction After Upgrade of Speech Processor in Cochlear Implantation

Objective: Cochlear implant (CI) users face the decision of whether to upgrade to a new sound processor (SP) with technological advances. We wanted to assess the changes of speech perception ability and aided hearing thresholds as well as subjective satisfaction after upgrade to a new SP. Methods: Fifty-five patients who have used CI for 10 years or more and upgraded to a new SP were enrolled. Word recognition scores were assessed before the upgrade and compared to those assessed 1 year after the upgrade to the Nucleus 7 SP. Changes of aided hearing thresholds and C- and T-levels were analyzed. Results: Previous SPs were 3G in 5, Freedom in 40, N5 in 24, and N6 in 6. Speech perception remained relatively unaffected by SP upgrade. The C- and T-levels increased after SP upgrading and the aided thresholds with previous generation SPs were higher than those 1 year after SP upgrading at all frequencies. In questionnaires, subjects felt that there was a definite subjective benefit to upgrading while most (60%) felt no difference regarding the communication in noise. Conclusions: Speech perception remained similar, but there were improved hearing sensitivity and better satisfaction after SP upgrade.

Focusing on positive listening experiences improves hearing aid outcomes in first-time hearing aid users: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate whether positive focus (PF), an intervention that asks hearing aid users to focus on positive listening experiences, improves hearing aid outcomes for first-time hearing aid users.

DESIGN

The participants were randomised into a control or PF group. They were fitted with hearing aids and followed for six months after fitting. The PF group was asked to report positive listening experiences in their daily life via an app. Participants in both groups were periodically prompted by the app to answer questionnaires about hearing aid satisfaction and benefit. Two follow-up visits at approximately one and six months were performed.

STUDY SAMPLE

20 adult first-time hearing aid users in the control and 18 in the PF group.

RESULTS

Hearing aid satisfaction and benefit scores were significantly better in the PF group, already at two weeks and throughout the six months. In the PF group, the hearing aid outcomes were positively correlated with the number of submitted positive reports.

CONCLUSIONS

These results point to the importance of asking first-time hearing aid users to focus on positive listening experiences and to reflect upon them. This can lead to improved short- and long-term hearing aid outcomes.

Focusing on positive listening experiences improves hearing aid outcomes in experienced hearing aid users

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether focusing on positive listening experiences improves hearing aid outcomes in experienced hearing aid users.

DESIGN

The participants were randomised into a control or positive focus (PF) group. At the first laboratory visit, the Client-Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) questionnaire was administered followed by hearing aid fitting. The participants wore the hearing aids for three weeks. The PF group was asked to report their positive listening experiences via an app. During the third week, all the participants answered questionnaires related to hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. This was followed by the second laboratory visit where the COSI follow-up questionnaire was administered.

STUDY SAMPLE

Ten participants were included in the control and eleven in the PF group.

RESULTS

Hearing aid outcome ratings were significantly better in the PF group in comparison to the control group. Further, COSI degree of change and the number of positive reports were positively correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

These results point to the importance of asking hearing aid users to focus on positive listening experiences and talk about them. The potential outcome is increased hearing aid benefit and satisfaction which could lead to more consistent use of the devices.

Hear Me Out: A Meta-Analysis of Third-Party Disability Due to Presbycusis

OBJECTIVES

Hearing-related third-party disability is the transferrable impact of presbycusis on an affected individual's surrounding social network. Previous research suggests that interventions to overcome hearing-related communication challenges benefit both the individual with presbycusis and their communication partner. However, there have been no comparisons of the effects of different interventions on third-party disability. We conducted meta-analyses of hearing aid or communication-based longitudinal interventions to determine if: both kinds of interventions significantly benefit communication partners across three categories of third-party disability (communication, emotional health and lifestyle outcomes), hearing aid and communication interventions differ in the size of treatment effects, and demographic variables moderate intervention efficacy.

DESIGN

Four databases were systematically searched for studies published after 1990 that included preintervention and postintervention data for communication partners of individuals receiving a hearing aid or communication-based intervention. Studies were included if participants had presbycusis, were aged 45 or over, with no known physical or mental disorders, and had a willing study partner over 18 years old. Databases were last comprehensively and hand-searched in January 2023. One researcher applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to select studies and complete data extraction. Depending on study design, risk of bias was assessed using the "Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group" or the "Risk of Bias 2." Random effects models were run for effect sizes for both intervention types (together and separately) for each third-party disability category. Meta-regressions were run to inspect the effect of demographic variables on intervention efficacy.

RESULTS

Six studies satisfied inclusion criteria and showed that for both hearing and communication interventions, communication partners experienced significant improvements in all three outcomes. Communication interventions showed greater benefits for lifestyle outcomes, but hearing aid and communication interventions did not differ for communication and emotional health outcomes. Meta-regressions revealed previously undetected relationships between demographic variables and intervention efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis and meta-regressions may have clinical and real-world implications in terms of highlighting the widespread benefits of these interventions, and the need to build in greater consideration of an individual's wider network when designing and implementing interventions. Noted limitations included certain combinations of intervention type and third-party disability category that were underrepresented (in absolute and/or relative terms), a lack of combined intervention (hearing aids and communication training) studies, and variation in the types of questionnaires used between studies. The current study discusses possible ways to unite the current literature for more consistent research practices.

Focusing on Positive Listening Experiences Improves Speech Intelligibility in Experienced Hearing Aid Users

Negativity bias is a cognitive bias that results in negative events being perceptually more salient than positive ones. For hearing care, this means that hearing aid benefits can potentially be overshadowed by adverse experiences. Research has shown that sustaining focus on positive experiences has the potential to mitigate negativity bias. The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether a positive focus (PF) intervention can improve speech-in-noise abilities for experienced hearing aid users. Thirty participants were randomly allocated to a control or PF group (N = 2 × 15). Prior to hearing aid fitting, all participants filled out the short form of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale (SSQ12) based on their own hearing aids. At the first visit, they were fitted with study hearing aids, and speech-in-noise testing was performed. Both groups then wore the study hearing aids for two weeks and sent daily text messages reporting hours of hearing aid use to an experimenter. In addition, the PF group was instructed to focus on positive listening experiences and to also report them in the daily text messages. After the 2-week trial, all participants filled out the SSQ12 questionnaire based on the study hearing aids and completed the speech-in-noise testing again. Speech-in-noise performance and SSQ12 Qualities score were improved for the PF group but not for the control group. This finding indicates that the PF intervention can improve subjective and objective hearing aid benefits.

Cochlear Implant Upper Stimulation Levels: eSRT vs. Loudness Scaling

OBJECTIVE

To assess the difference in speech recognition and sound quality between programming upper stimulation levels using behavioral measures (loudness scaling) and electrically evoked stapedial reflex thresholds (eSRTs).

STUDY DESIGN

Double-blinded acute comparison study.

SETTING

Cochlear implant (CI) program at a tertiary medical center.

PATIENTS

Eighteen adult (mean age = 60 years) CI users and 20 ears.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Speech recognition scores and sound quality ratings.

RESULTS

Mean word and sentence in noise recognition scores were 8 and 9 percentage points higher, respectively, for the eSRT-based map. The sound quality rating was 1.4 points higher for the eSRT-based map. Sixteen out of 20 participants preferred the eSRT-based map.

CONCLUSIONS

Study results show significantly higher speech recognition and more favorable sound quality using an eSRT-based map compared with a loudness-scaling map using a double-blinded testing approach. Additionally, results may be understated as 18 of 20 ears had eSRTs measured before study enrollment. Results underscore the importance of incorporating eSRTs into standard clinical practice to promote best outcomes for CI recipients.

Prioritizing research on over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids for age-related hearing loss

Hearing aids are the most commonly used treatment for people with age-related hearing loss, however, hearing aid uptake is low, primarily due to high cost of the device, stigma, and a lack of perceived need. To address accessibility and affordability issues, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration created a new over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aid category. Various types of hearing devices are available for both individuals with hearing loss and for those with normal hearing, as hearing enhancement devices. Hearing aids (i.e., prescription hearing aids, self-fitting OTC hearing aids, and pre-set OTC hearing aids) are regulated by the FDA. The purpose of this article is to (a) provide a summary of existing research on direct-to-consumer (DTC) hearing devices such as Personal Sound Amplification Products (PSAPs) that informs OTC service delivery models; (b) provide an update on existing and ongoing randomized controlled trials on currently marketed OTC hearing aids; and (c) highlight the need for immediate research on OTC hearing aids and service delivery models to inform policy and clinical care. It remains to be seen what effect OTC hearing aids have on improving the uptake of hearing aids by individuals with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. However, there is scant research on all aspects of OTC hearing aids that are currently on the market. We conclude that high quality independent research must be prioritized to supplement evidence provided by the OTC hearing aid manufacturers for regulatory approval purposes.

The hunt for hidden hearing loss in humans: From preclinical studies to effective interventions

Many individuals experience hearing problems that are hidden under a normal audiogram. This not only impacts on individual sufferers, but also on clinicians who can offer little in the way of support. Animal studies using invasive methodologies have developed solid evidence for a range of pathologies underlying this hidden hearing loss (HHL), including cochlear synaptopathy, auditory nerve demyelination, elevated central gain, and neural mal-adaptation. Despite progress in pre-clinical models, evidence supporting the existence of HHL in humans remains inconclusive, and clinicians lack any non-invasive biomarkers sensitive to HHL, as well as a standardized protocol to manage hearing problems in the absence of elevated hearing thresholds. Here, we review animal models of HHL as well as the ongoing research for tools with which to diagnose and manage hearing difficulties associated with HHL. We also discuss new research opportunities facilitated by recent methodological tools that may overcome a series of barriers that have hampered meaningful progress in diagnosing and treating of HHL.

Hearing Aids Mitigate Tinnitus, But Does It Matter if the Patient Receives Amplification in Accordance With Their Hearing Impairment or Not? A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present meta-analysis is to explore the potential effects of objective verification of hearing aid amplification on tinnitus-related outcomes.

METHOD

Twenty-seven studies reporting tinnitus outcomes pre and post hearing aid fitting were identified through a systematic literature search. From these studies, data from 1,400 participants were included in the present meta-analysis. Studies were divided into subgroups based on whether they had reported performing objective verification of the participants' hearing aid amplification or not. Outcome measures were tinnitus distress and tinnitus loudness.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses of all included studies indicated verified amplification to result in significantly enhanced reduction of tinnitus loudness (p < .00001), while the enhanced reduction of tinnitus distress only approached statistical significance (p = .07). However, when excluding an outlier from the subgroup of studies using unverified amplification, individuals receiving verified amplification showed significantly greater reduction of tinnitus distress (p = .02). In addition, analyses of longitudinal effects revealed that the reductions of tinnitus distress decreased over time among individuals receiving unverified amplification but increased over time among individuals receiving verified amplification.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis indicates verified hearing aid amplification to be superior to unverified amplification in terms of reduction of tinnitus loudness and distress. The longitudinal increase of mitigation of tinnitus distress with verified amplification only may reflect improved neural reorganization and/or better adherence to hearing aid use, with verified compared to unverified amplification. Due to the low cost of hearing aid verification compared to the high societal cost of tinnitus, objective verification of hearing aid amplification for tinnitus patients is recommended.

Premium versus entry-level hearing aids: using group concept mapping to investigate the drivers of preference

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the difference in outcome measures and drivers of user preference between premium and entry-level hearing aids using group concept mapping.

DESIGN

A single-blind crossover trial was conducted. Aided behavioural outcomes measured were loudness rating, speech/consonant recognition, and speech quality. Preference between hearing aids was measured with a 7-point Likert scale. Group concept mapping was utilised to investigate preference results. Participants generated statements based on what influenced their preferences. These were sorted into categories with underlying themes. Participants rated each statement on a 5-point Likert scale of importance.

STUDY SAMPLE

Twenty-three adult participants (mean: 62.4 years; range: 24-78) with mild to moderately severe bilateral SNHL (PTA_{500-4000 Hz} > 20 dB HL).

RESULTS

A total of 83 unique statements and nine distinct clusters, with underlying themes driving preference, were generated. Clusters that differed significantly in importance between entry-level and premium hearing aid choosers were: Having access to smartphone application-based user-controlled settings, the ability to stream calls and music, and convenience features such as accessory compatibility.

CONCLUSION

This study has identified non-signal-processing factors which significantly influenced preference for a premium hearing aid over an entry-level hearing aid, indicating the importance of these features as drivers of user preference.

Clinical Trials and Outcome Measures in Adults With Hearing Loss

Clinical trials are designed to evaluate interventions that prevent, diagnose or treat a health condition and provide the evidence base for improving practice in health care. Many health professionals, including those working within or allied to hearing health, are expected to conduct or contribute to clinical trials. Recent systematic reviews of clinical trials reveal a dearth of high quality evidence in almost all areas of hearing health practice. By providing an overview of important steps and considerations concerning the design, analysis and conduct of trials, this article aims to give guidance to hearing health professionals about the key elements that define the quality of a trial. The article starts out by situating clinical trials within the greater scope of clinical evidence, then discusses the elements of a PICO-style research question. Subsequently, various methodological considerations are discussed including design, randomization, blinding, and outcome measures. Because the literature on outcome measures within hearing health is as confusing as it is voluminous, particular focus is given to discussing how hearing-related outcome measures affect clinical trials. This focus encompasses how the choice of measurement instrument(s) affects interpretation, how the accuracy of a measure can be estimated, how this affects the interpretation of results, and if differences are statistically, perceptually and/or clinically meaningful to the target population, people with hearing loss.

The effect of stimulus duration on preferences for gain adjustments when listening to speech

Objectives

In the personalisation of hearing-aid fittings, gain is often adjusted to suit patient preferences using live speech. When using brief sentences as stimuli, the minimum gain adjustments necessary to elicit consistent preferences (“preference thresholds”) were previously found to be much greater than typical adjustments in current practice. The current study examined the role of duration on preference thresholds.

Design

Participants heard 2, 4 and 6-s segments of a continuous monologue presented successively in pairs. The first segment of each pair was presented at each individual’s real-ear or prescribed gain. The second segment was presented with a ±0–12 dB gain adjustment in one of three frequency bands. Participants judged whether the second was “better”, “worse” or “no different” from the first.

Study sample

Twenty-nine adults, all with hearing-aid experience.

Results

The minimum gain adjustments needed to elicit “better” or “worse” judgments decreased with increasing duration for most adjustments. Inter-participant agreement and intra-participant reliability increased with increasing duration up to 4 s, then remained stable.

Conclusions

Providing longer stimuli improves the likelihood of patients providing reliable judgments of hearing-aid gain adjustments, but the effect is limited, and alternative fitting methods may be more viable for effective hearing-aid personalisation.

Descriptions of Hearing Aids Influence the Experience of Listening to Hearing Aids

OBJECTIVES

Experiences can be strongly influenced by expectations. In hearing healthcare, previous studies have shown that descriptions of hearing aids or contextual factors during the hearing aid fitting process can change subjective and even objective outcomes with hearing aids via the placebo effect. Personality factors have also been shown to affect susceptibility to placebo effects. The purposes of the present study were to (a) investigate the effects of communicating narratives designed to foster positive, negative, or neutral expectations about hearing aids on short-term patient outcomes, and (b) to determine if the degree to which the narratives affected end-user outcomes could be predicted by personality factors.

DESIGN

Nineteen adults between the ages of 54 and 81 (mean age = 68.5, SD = 8.9) had 3 separate research appointments, each exposing them to a different narrative condition: positive, negative, or neutral. the appointment was designed to look and feel like a "traditional" hearing aid fitting appointment, during which the experimenter introduced (i.e., the narrative condition) and fit a pair of hearing aids, the participant was asked to provide their initial feedback about the hearing aids, and the participant performed speech-in-noise testing. Unbeknownst to the research participant, the hearing aids fitted at all three appointments were the same, and the only difference between the three appointments was the way the hearing aids were described to the participants.

RESULTS

The results of this study showed that communication of a positive narrative about hearing aids before a hearing aid fitting led to better speech-in-noise performance on the QuickSIN as compared with performance following the negative or neutral narrative conditions. Also, the positive narrative led to the perception that acclimatization to the hearing aids would occur faster than the negative or neutral narrative conditions. Notably, the effect of communication of a positive narrative was stronger for individuals who scored higher on agreeableness, and susceptibility to positive and negative messaging was stronger for individuals low in neuroticism.

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that short-term evaluations of hearing aids can be strongly influenced by narratives as provided by the hearing healthcare provider at the time of a hearing aid fitting.

The perceptual limitations of troubleshooting hearing-aids based on patients' descriptions

OBJECTIVES

Hearing-aid frequency-gain responses are routinely adjusted by clinicians to patient preferences and descriptions. This study measured the minimum gain adjustments required to elicit preferences, and the assignment of descriptors to gain adjustments, to perceptually evaluate description-based troubleshooting.

DESIGN

Participants judged whether short sentences with ±0-12 dB gain adjustments in one of three frequency bands were "better", "worse" or "no different" from the same sentence at their individual real-ear or prescribed gain. If judged "better" or "worse", participants were then asked to assign one of the six common sound-quality descriptors to their preference.

STUDY SAMPLE

Thirty-two adults (aged 51-75 years) all with hearing-aid experience.

RESULTS

Median preference thresholds, the minimum gain adjustments to elicit "better" or "worse" judgments, ranged from 4 to 12 dB, increasing with frequency. There was some between-participant agreement in preferences: participants generally preferred greater low-frequency gain. Within-participant reliability for preferences was moderate. There was, however, little between-participant agreement in descriptor selection for gain adjustments. Furthermore, within-participant reliability for descriptor selection was lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

The scale of gain adjustments necessary to elicit preferences, along with the low agreement and reliability in descriptors for these adjustments questions the efficiency and efficacy of current description-based troubleshooting, especially with short speech stimuli.

Achieved Gain and Subjective Outcomes for a Wide-Bandwidth Contact Hearing Aid Fitted Using CAM2

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

The objective of this study was to test the ability to achieve, maintain, and subjectively benefit from extended high-frequency amplification in a real-world use scenario, with a device that restores audibility for frequencies up to 10 kHz.

Design:

A total of 78 participants (149 ears) with mild to moderately-severe sensorineural hearing loss completed one of two studies conducted across eight clinical sites. Participants were fitted with a light-driven contact hearing aid (the Earlens system) that directly drives the tympanic membrane, allowing extended high-frequency output and amplification with minimal acoustic feedback. Cambridge Method for Loudness Equalization 2 - High Frequency (CAM2)-prescribed gains for experienced users were used for initial fitting, and adjustments were made when required according to participant preferences for loudness and comfort or when measures of functional gain (FG) indicated that more or less gain was needed. Participants wore the devices for an extended period. Prescribed versus adjusted output and gain, frequency-specific FG, and self-perceived benefit assessed with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, and a custom questionnaire were documented. Self-perceived benefit results were compared with those for unaided listening and to ratings with participants’ own acoustic hearing aids.

Results:

The prescribed low-level insertion gain from 6 to 10 kHz averaged 53 dB across all ears, with a range from 26 to 86 dB. After adjustment, the gain from 6 to 10 kHz decreased to an average of 45 dB with a range from 16 to 86 dB. Measured FG averaged 39 dB from 6 to 10 kHz with a range from 11 to 62 dB. Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit results revealed a significant improvement in communication relative to unaided listening, averaging 28 to 32 percentage points for the background noise, reverberation, and ease of communication subscales. Relative to participants’ own hearing aids, the subscales ease of communication and aversiveness showed small but significant improvements for Earlens ranging from 6 to 7 percentage points. For the custom satisfaction questionnaire, most participants rated the Earlens system as better than their own hearing aids in most situations.

Conclusions:

Participants used and reported subjective benefit from the Earlens system. Most participants preferred slightly less gain at 6 to 10 kHz than prescribed for experienced users by CAM2, preferring similar gains to those prescribed for inexperienced users, but gains over the extended high frequencies were high relative to those that are currently available with acoustic hearing aids.

Systematic Evaluation of Self-Reported Hearing Ability in Six Dimensions Before and After a Hearing Aid Trial

Purpose The aim of the study was to evaluate the application of a modified version of the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disabilities and Handicap to inventory self-reported hearing difficulties pre and post hearing aid fitting in 6 dimensions: detection, speech in silence, speech in noise, localization, discrimination, and noise tolerance. Method Questionnaires pre and post hearing aid fitting were collected during regular practice of hearing aid provision. Data of 740 subjects are presented; 337 already used hearing aids, and 403 were new users. Results Group-averaged scores improved due to hearing aid fitting for all 6 dimensions. Based on a criterion previously defined for the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disabilities and Handicap questionnaire, 66% of subjects had a significant individual improvement in sum score. Experienced users showed lower improvement in scores, whereas their aided prescores were, on average, not better than the (unaided) score of 1st users. Conclusions The questionnaire can be applied as a structured approach to inventory hearing problems in 6 dimensions prior to hearing aid fitting and to systematically evaluate the effects of hearing aid fitting after a trial period. The data presented here can serve as normative data for comparison of individual subjects in clinical practice.

Comparison of Frequency Transposition and Frequency Compression for People With Extensive Dead Regions in the Cochlea

The objective was to determine the effects of two frequency-lowering algorithms (frequency transposition, FT, and frequency compression, FC) on audibility, speech identification, and subjective benefit, for people with high-frequency hearing loss and extensive dead regions (DRs) in the cochlea. A single-blind randomized crossover design was used. FT and FC were compared with each other and with a control condition (denoted ‘Control’) without frequency lowering, using hearing aids that were otherwise identical. Data were collected after at least 6 weeks of experience with a condition. Outcome measures were audibility, scores for consonant identification, scores for word-final /s, z/ detection (S test), sentence-in-noise intelligibility, and a questionnaire assessing self-perceived benefit (Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale). Ten adults with steeply sloping high-frequency hearing loss and extensive DRs were tested. FT and FC improved the audibility of some high-frequency sounds for 7 and 9 participants out of 10, respectively. At the group level, performance for FT and FC did not differ significantly from that for Control for any of the outcome measures. However, the pattern of consonant confusions varied across conditions. Bayesian analysis of the confusion matrices revealed a trend for FT to lead to more consistent error patterns than FC and Control. Thus, FT may have the potential to give greater benefit than Control or FC following extended experience or training.

The Oticon Medical Neuro Zti cochlear implant and the Neuro 2 sound processor: multicentric evaluation of outcomes in adults and children

Objective: This study evaluated the outcomes of the Oticon Medical Neuro Zti cochlear implant and the Neuro 2 sound processor.Design: Neuro One users were upgraded to Neuro 2. Monosyllabic word identification was evaluated in adults with Neuro One after ≥5 months, with Neuro 2 at upgrade, and with Neuro 2 after 3 months. Self-reported listening ability, satisfaction, and usability were measured in adults and children.Study sample: Participants were 44 adults and 26 children.Results: Speech identification scores in quiet and noise were 58% and 45% with Neuro One and 67% and 55% with Neuro 2 after 3 months, respectively. Hearing impairment duration and number of active electrodes significantly predicted speech identification in noise with Neuro 2. Significantly higher questionnaire ratings were obtained for Neuro 2 than Neuro One regarding listening ability in complex listening situations, comfort and music, as well as nine aspects of satisfaction and usability.Conclusion: This study demonstrates the clinical superiority of the Neuro 2 sound processor over Neuro One in terms of speech identification in quiet and in noise and reported patient benefit and satisfaction. Given the study design, sources of improvement may include factors unrelated to the sound processor itself.

Changing Hearing Performance and Sound Preference With Words and Expectations: Meaning Responses in Audiology

OBJECTIVES

In this article, we explore two manipulations of "meaning response," intended to either "impart" meaning to participants through the manipulation of a few words in the test instructions or to "invite" meaning by making the participant feel involved in the setting of their preferred sound.

DESIGN

In experiment 1, 59 adults with normal hearing were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. Group 1 was told "this hearing in noise test (HINT) you are about to do is really hard," while the second group was told "this HINT test is really easy." In experiment 2, 59 normal-hearing adults were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Every participant was played a highly distorted sound file and given 5 mystery sliders on a computer to move as often and as much as they wished until the sound was "best" to them. They were then told we applied their settings to a new file and they needed to rate their sound settings on this new file against either (1) another participant in the study, or (2) an expert audiologist. In fact, we played them the same sound file twice.

RESULTS

In experiment 1, those who were told the test was hard performed significantly better than the easy group. In experiment 2, a significant preference was found in the group when comparing "my setting" to "another participant." No significant difference was found in the group comparing "my setting" to the "expert."

CONCLUSIONS

Imparting or inviting meaning into the context of audiological outcome measurement can alter outcomes even in the absence of any additional technology or treatment. These findings lend support to a growing body of research about the many nonauditory factors including motivation, effort, and task demands that can impact performance in our clinics and laboratories.

Using the device-oriented subjective outcome (DOSO) scale to measure outcomes of different hearing aids

OBJECTIVE

The device-oriented subjective outcome (DOSO) is a device-oriented questionnaire, intended to minimise the influence of personality on self-reported measures. The aim of this study was to provide normative data with 2015-era hearing aid technologies.

DESIGN

This retrospective study evaluated data from records of three clinical trials. The DOSO was administered for the participants' own devices as a part of the intake and after using research devices in the field.

STUDY SAMPLE

The DOSO data were collected from 132 experienced bilateral hearing aid wearers who participated in the clinical trials.

RESULTS

The DOSO data collected with the participants' own devices were compared to the interim normative data collected between 2004 and 2005. The DOSO subscale scores from the participants' own devices were significantly higher than those from the interim norms, except Listening Effort subscale. To demonstrate the utility of the new norms, a separate set of DOSO data collected from the same participants after using research hearing aids were contrasted to the new normative data. After accounting for possible placebo effects, the DOSO data with research devices revealed additional self-reported benefit of technological advancements.

CONCLUSIONS

Norms for the DOSO are recommended for evaluating hearing aids with more recent technologies.

Evaluation of Auditory Functioning and Rehabilitation Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

There is lack of a systematic approach concerning how to select an adequate hearing aid and how to evaluate its efficacy with respect to the personal needs of rehabilitation. The goal of this study was to examine the applicability and added value of two widely used self-reporting questionnaires in relation to the evaluation of hearing aid fitting. We analyzed responses, pre- and postfitting, from 1,319 subjects who completed the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and a slightly adapted version of the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap (in Dutch: AVAB). Most COSI responses were at or near the maximum possible score. Results show a close relation between COSI's degree of change and final ability (Spearman's rho = 0.71). Both AVAB and COSI showed a significant effect of hearing aid experience, but-in contrast to AVAB-COSI did not show a significant effect of the degree of hearing loss. In addition, a Friedman test showed significant differences between six dimensions of auditory functioning for both AVAB and COSI, although post hoc analysis revealed that for COSI, the dimension speech in quiet explained most variation between dimensions. In conclusion, the effects of hearing loss were more salient in AVAB, while both AVAB and COSI showed differences regarding hearing aid experience. Combining the advantages of both methods results in a detailed evaluation of hearing aid rehabilitation. Our results therefore suggest that both methods should be used in a complementary manner, rather than separately.

Applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss: a review

Background

This systematic literature review is aimed at investigating applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss. This review discusses three categories of direct-to-consumer hearing devices: 1) personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), 2) direct-mail hearing aids, and 3) over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids.

Method

A literature review was conducted using EBSCOhost and included the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. After applying prior agreed inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 reports were included in the review.

Results

Included studies fell into three domains: 1) electroacoustic characteristics, 2) consumer surveys, and 3) outcome evaluations. Electroacoustic characteristics of these devices vary significantly with some meeting the stringent acoustic criteria used for hearing aids, while others producing dangerous output levels (ie, over 120-dB sound pressure level). Low-end (or low-cost) devices were typically poor in acoustic quality and did not meet gain levels necessary for most adult and elderly hearing loss patterns (eg, presbycusis), especially in high frequencies. Despite direct-mail hearing aids and PSAPs being associated with lower satisfaction when compared to hearing aids purchased through hearing health care professionals, consumer surveys suggest that 5%–19% of people with hearing loss purchase hearing aids through direct-mail or online. Studies on outcome evaluation suggest positive outcomes of OTC devices in the elderly population. Of note, OTC outcomes appear better when a hearing health care professional supports these users.

Conclusion

While some direct-to-consumer hearing devices have the capability to produce adverse effects due to production of dangerously high sound levels and internal noise, the existing literature suggests that there are potential benefits of these devices. Research of direct-to-consumer hearing devices is limited, and current published studies are of weak quality. Much effort is needed to understand the benefits and limitations of such devices on people with hearing loss.

Improvement of older-person-specific QOL after hearing aid fitting and its relation to social interaction

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate whether hearing aids use is associated with improvement of older-person-specific QOL and whether social interactions modify the association.

METHODS

The WHOQOL-OLD questionnaire was answered by 105 older adults aged 60 to 90 years who were newly fitted hearing aids on the day of fitting and at 2 - 6 months afterward. The associations between the daily hours of hearing aid usage and social relations with changes in the WHOQOL-OLD total score after hearing aids fitting were estimated adjusting for possible confounders.

RESULTS

Older persons with hearing loss experienced significant increases in WHOQOL-OLD total score after hearing aid fitting. Regular use of hearing aid was associated with a greater increase in the total score. The combined categorical variable of social relations and hearing aid usage revealed no separate effects of these two variables, but a combined effect; only those with frequent social interactions who used their hearing aid regularly had a significantly greater increase in WHOQOL-OLD total score.

CONCLUSION

This study's findings indicate that hearing aid fitting may be associated with a subsequent improvement in older-person-specific QOL by improvements in hearing due to the hearing aid, and possibly enhanced communication opportunities.

Evaluation of a Frequency-Lowering Algorithm for Adults With High-Frequency Hearing Loss

The objective was to determine the effects of a frequency-lowering algorithm (frequency composition, Fcomp) on consonant identification, word-final /s, z/ detection, the intelligibility of sentences in noise, and subjective benefit, for people with high-frequency hearing loss, including people with dead regions (DRs) in the cochlea. A single-blind randomized crossover design was used. Performance with Bernafon Acriva 9 hearing aids was compared with Fcomp off and Fcomp on. Participants wore the hearing aids in each condition in a counterbalanced order. Data were collected after at least 8 weeks of experience with a condition. Outcome measures were audibility, scores from the speech perception tests, and scores from a questionnaire comparing self-perceived hearing ability with Fcomp off and Fcomp on. Ten adults with mild to severe high-frequency hearing loss (seven with extensive DRs, one with patchy or restricted DRs, and two with no DR) were tested. Fcomp improved the audibility of high-frequency sounds for 6 out of 10 participants. There was no overall effect of Fcomp on consonant identification, but the pattern of consonant confusions varied across conditions and participants. For word-final /s, z/ detection, performance was significantly better with Fcomp on than with Fcomp off. Questionnaire scores showed no differences between conditions. In summary, Fcomp improved word-final /s, z/ detection. No benefit was found for the other measures.

Provision, perception and use of trainable hearing aids in Australia: a survey of clinicians and hearing impaired adults

OBJECTIVE

This study set out to obtain information on the impact of trainable hearing aids among clinicians and hearing aid users and candidates.

DESIGN

Two online adaptive surveys were developed to evaluate provision, uptake and experience or expectation of trainable hearing aids.

STUDY SAMPLE

Responses from 259 clinicians, 81 hearing aid users and 23 candidates for hearing aids were included.

RESULTS

Over half of the clinicians surveyed activated trainable features in hearing aids. Most of these clinicians activated trainable features for selected users and reported positive findings. Most commonly trainable features were not activated because the hearing aid controls had already been disabled for management or client preference. One-third reported that they had no access to trainable aids or they were unsure about the presence or activation of trainable features. The remaining clinicians never activated trainable features. One in five users reported having used trainable aids and 93% would train again. Over 85% of the remaining hearing-impaired adults were interested in trainable aids.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive reports from most providers and users who had experience with the trainable feature support the provision of trainable aids to selected clients, pending more evidence-based data to support the clinical management of such devices.

Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Acquired adult-onset hearing loss is a common long-term condition for which the most common intervention is hearing aid fitting. However, up to 40% of people fitted with a hearing aid either fail to use it or may not gain optimal benefit from it. This is an update of a review first published in The Cochrane Library in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the long-term effectiveness of interventions to promote the use of hearing aids in adults with acquired hearing loss fitted with at least one hearing aid.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 13 June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions designed to improve or promote hearing aid use in adults with acquired hearing loss compared with usual care or another intervention. We excluded interventions that compared hearing aid technology. We classified interventions according to the 'chronic care model' (CCM). The primary outcomes were hearing aid use (measured as adherence or daily hours of use) and adverse effects (inappropriate advice or clinical practice, or patient complaints). Secondary patient-reported outcomes included quality of life, hearing handicap, hearing aid benefit and communication. Outcomes were measured over the short ( 12 to < 52 weeks) and long term (one year plus).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 studies involving a total of 4129 participants. Risk of bias across the included studies was variable. We judged the GRADE quality of evidence to be very low or low for the primary outcomes where data were available.The majority of participants were over 65 years of age with mild to moderate adult-onset hearing loss. There was a mix of new and experienced hearing aid users. Six of the studies (287 participants) assessed long-term outcomes.All 37 studies tested interventions that could be classified using the CCM as self-management support (ways to help someone to manage their hearing loss and hearing aid(s) better by giving information, practice and experience at listening/communicating or by asking people to practise tasks at home) and/or delivery system design interventions (just changing how the service was delivered). Self-management support interventions We found no studies that investigated the effect of these interventions on adherence, adverse effects or hearing aid benefit. Two studies reported daily hours of hearing aid use but we were unable to combine these in a meta-analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant effect on quality of life over the medium term. Self-management support reduced short- to medium-term hearing handicap (two studies, 87 participants; mean difference (MD) -12.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.11 to -2.48 (0 to 100 scale)) and increased the use of verbal communication strategies in the short to medium term (one study, 52 participants; MD 0.72, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.23 (0 to 5 scale)). The clinical significance of these statistical findings is uncertain. It is likely that the outcomes were clinically significant for some, but not all, participants. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was very low. No self-management support studies reported long-term outcomes. Delivery system design interventionsThese interventions did not significantly affect adherence or daily hours of hearing aid use in the short to medium term, or adverse effects in the long term. We found no studies that investigated the effect of these interventions on quality of life. There was no evidence of a statistically or clinically significant effect on hearing handicap, hearing aid benefit or the use of verbal communication strategies in the short to medium term. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was low or very low. Long-term outcome measurement was rare. Combined self-management support/delivery system design interventionsOne combined intervention showed evidence of a statistically significant effect on adherence in the short term (one study, 167 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12). However, there was no evidence of a statistically or clinically significant effect on daily hours of hearing aid use over the long term, or the short to medium term. No studies of this type investigated adverse effects. There was no evidence of an effect on quality of life over the long term, or short to medium term. These combined interventions reduced hearing handicap in the short to medium term (15 studies, 728 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.04). This represents a small-moderate effect size but there is no evidence of a statistically significant effect over the long term. There was evidence of a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect on long-term hearing aid benefit (two studies, 69 participants, MD 0.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.58 (1 to 5 scale)), but no evidence of an effect over the short to medium term. There was evidence of a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect on the use of verbal communication strategies in the short term (four studies, 223 participants, MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.74 (0 to 5 scale)), but not the long term. Our confidence in the quality of this evidence was low or very low.We found no studies that assessed the effect of other CCM interventions (decision support, the clinical information system, community resources or health system changes).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some low to very low quality evidence to support the use of self-management support and complex interventions combining self-management support and delivery system design in adult auditory rehabilitation. However, effect sizes are small. The range of interventions that have been tested is relatively limited. Future research should prioritise: long-term outcome assessment; development of a core outcome set for adult auditory rehabilitation; and study designs and outcome measures that are powered to detect incremental effects of rehabilitative healthcare system changes.

Clinical evaluation of an over-the-counter hearing aid (TEO First®) in elderly patients suffering of mild to moderate hearing loss

Background

Presbycusis has a direct influence on autonomy of the elderly but hearing aids lack of affordability. Moreover a recent review demonstrate that electroacoustic characteristics of OTC hearing aids were generally not suitable for the elderly people. In our study, we assessed the clinical value of a new over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aid device (TEO First®) in the elderly.

Method

This prospective monocentric open label study included patients over 60 years of age with a mild to moderate presbycusis. Patients were assessed with acceptable noise level test (ANL), pure tone (PTA) and speech (SA) audiometry in silent and noisy environment, with and without TEO First®. A Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile, acceptability and satisfaction surveys were completed after one month of using the device.

Results

Thirty one patients were included. There was an improvement of hearing with TEO First® in silence (SA: +39.2 %, p < 0.01; PTA: -9.04 dB, p < 0.01) or in noise (SA +47.7 %, p < 0.01; PTA: -5.23 dB, p < 0.05). After one month of use of the device, quality of life has improved with regards to the following parameters: decrease of perceived hearing difficulties during conversation without background noise (-9.6 % p = 0.018), in conversation with several people (-16.2 % p = 0.0076), decrease of negative emotions while watching TV (-18.5 % p = 0.011), during conversation without background noise (-16.5 % p = 0.0024), during conversation in noisy background (-17.1 % p = 0.027) and during conversation with several people (-20 % p = 0.014). The acceptability of the device was low to moderate.

Conclusion

TEO First® is an effective OTC hearing aid that improves the patient’s quality of life.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials NCT01815788