PubMed · 13006857
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
H E ZANGEMEISTER. [Speech audiometry].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13006857/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In nine patients with unilateral deafness and normal hearing in the contralateral ear, measurements of sound localization and speech perception were obtained before intervention, with a conventional contralateral routing of sound (CROS) hearing aid and later with a bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) implanted in the deaf ear. Sound localization did not show any differences between the three conditions. Speech perception using short, everyday sentences showed a reduction in the head-shadow effect of 2 dB for both the conventional CROS hearing aid and the BAHA in comparison to the unaided condition. Patients' real-life experiences of the three conditions were evaluated using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire. The results showed a significant benefit with the BAHA in situations involving background noise and reverberation and a reduced aversion to loud sounds in comparison to the unaided and conventional CROS conditions.
The Vibrant Soundbridge, a semi-implantable hearing device for subjects with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing impairment was introduced commercially. First audiologic results are presented on 63 patients from 10 European implant centers. Hearing loss was at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz varying between 43 and 81 dB HL. The patients used the analogue audio processor, type 302. Measured sound-field gain was compared with NAL-R target values. For most patients an acceptable agreement was found. There was a subgroup of patients, however, with relatively low gain. The results suggest that this was related to the suboptimal positioning and fixation of the transducer to the incus.
Two different hearing instrument fitting strategies were compared in the laboratory and in a field test with regard to the benefit for hearing aid users and their satisfaction with the fitting. DSL [input/output (i/o)] fittings based on hearing threshold and uncomfortable levels for the subject were evaluated vs a prescriptive fitting method based on unaided loudness scaling. Twenty-one subjects were fitted diotically with both fitting strategies implemented in a digital hearing instrument (Siemens Prisma). The patients tested both fitting strategies sequentially in a 4 + 4-week field trial using a crossover study design. Speech recognition threshold measurements, sound quality ratings and paired comparisons of sound quality were performed for all conditions (unaided, DSL[i/o] fitting and loudness-based fitting). In addition, subjective benefit and preference were assessed with questionnaires. Speech audiometry did not reveal significant differences between the two fittings. DSL[i/o] fittings showed superior results in most sound quality tests and in the self-assessment of communication abilities while the loudness-based approach was slightly preferred in noisy environments. The results seemed to be influenced by the higher gain predicted by DSL[i/o]. This study provides no evidence that effort spent on loudness scaling leads to improved fitting results.