Hearing functions

Abstract: Subjective assessment of hearing ability in everyday life complements more objective forms of evaluation. A broad evaluation of the additional benefit provided to children by a second bilateral cochlear implant required such an assessment. As no paediatric tool provided detailed evaluation of performance in the areas of daily listening in which benefit was likely to be demonstrated, an adult questionnaire was adapted. Items of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) focused mainly, although not exclusively, on hearing functions requiring the binaural system. The adapted child, parent, and teacher versions of the SSQ retained the structure of rating listening performance in everyday scenarios across the domains of speech perception, spatial hearing, and other qualities of hearing. Modifications were minimized, although deletion of some items and wording changes were required, and some subdomains could not be included. Observation periods were introduced so that parents and teachers observe performance prior to providing ratings. The suggested minimum age is 11 years for the child version and 5 years for the parent and teacher versions. Instructions indicate interview-style administration in which interpretation of the described listening scenarios can be clarified and use of the ruler-style response format demonstrated. Researchers applying the SSQ for parents have reported higher performance ratings for bilateral over unilateral cochlear implants, particularly in the spatial hearing domain. Further research should provide evidence for the target age range, compare child and parent responses, and evaluate modifications for use with younger children.

Abstract: The literature on self-assessed outcomes from bilateral and unilateral hearing aid fitting is reviewed. The nature, aims, and design of different studies are quite varied, and limitations attend many of them. Nonetheless, certain indications can be extracted from the pattern of reported results. Thus, greater measured impairment, greater self-rated disability, and/or more critical contexts of listening emerge as candidate predictors of preference for, or persistence with, a bilateral fitting profile. Two matters are briefly critiqued regarding one vs two hearing aids: 1) the analogue with binocular optical correction; 2) the unaided ear ("deprivation") effect. Questions are raised about the adequacy of the range of hearing functions addressed by previous investigations of bilateral vs. unilateral fitting-and a broadened range of functions is outlined. A recent self-report-based comparison of one versus two hearing aids (Noble & Gatehouse, International Journal of Audiology, 2006) reveals that the benefit of two lies in contexts of more demanding and dynamic listening and in reduced listening effort.

Abstract: Bilateral amplification seems to be the best solution for bilaterally hearing-impaired persons. Nevertheless, some individuals are unsuccessful with this strategy. The goals of the present study were to develop tests to improve the diagnostic test battery before rehabilitation of hearing-impaired persons with bilateral or unilateral amplification, and to evaluate the tests with normally-hearing subjects and with two groups of hearing-impaired persons. The latter two groups contained 11 successful and 11 unsuccessful users of bilateral amplification respectively. Hearing thresholds, speech recognition in noise, signal analysis ability, binaural abilities, and dichotic tests were used in the investigation. The subjects answered a questionnaire and hearing aid gain curves were measured. The results for the two groups were similar for peripheral hearing functions and binaural performance. The unilateral amplification group showed significantly worse results in speech-in-noise and dichotic tests. Spatial aspects within the questionnaire were correlated to amplification preference. We therefore suggest the inclusion of speech-in-noise, dichotic tests, and questions on spatial orientation into the diagnostic scheme before rehabilitation with hearing aids.

Abstract: Objective: In otology, a wide variety of devices are used that have significant noise output, both operated ear and the patient. We aimed to determine hearing damages due to drill-generated acoustic trauma in ear surgery. We want to find how degree drill-generated acoustic trauma is responsible from sensorineural hearing loss in ear surgery. Materials and methods: We designed a retrospective study about 100 patients who underwent radical or modiphied radical mastoidectomy and tympanoplasty. The audiometric testing was done both pre and postoperatively to detect any significant hearing loss in the immediate postoperative period. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon sign and Mann-Whitney U tests. This study proposes that hearing loss is caused by drill noise conducted to the operated ear by vibrations of temporal bone. Results: A sensorineural hearing loss soon after mastoid surgery is seen due to the noise generated by the drill. Mean pure-tone thresholds obtained was significantly more in mastoidectomy applied patients when compared to tympanoplasty . Mean bone conduction (BC) hearing levels impaired 6,6 dB in 1 kHz ,5.5 dB in 0.5 kHz , 5 dB in 4.kHz and 3.1 dB in 2 kHz in mastoidectomy groups but improved 5.5 dB in 0.5 kHz, 2.2 dB in 1 kHz , 2.7 dB in 2 kHz in tympanoplasty groups. Statistically significant differences were observed at the 0.5-1 and 4 kHz frequencies pre and postoperative in the hearing thresholds of BC changing in mastoidectomy group, however, the averages of ranks of all pre and postoperative measurement of hearing levels show differences between mastoidectomy and tympanoplasty groups was significant in statistically at independent groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: We conclude that drill-generated noise during mastoid surgery has been incriminated as a cause of sensorineural hearing loss. Drilling during mastoid surgery may result in temporary or permanent noise-induced hearing loss. Possible noise disturbance to the inner ear can only be avoided by minimizing the duration of harmful noise exposure and carefull using burr to near the cochlear structures.