Literature DB >> 15004647

Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome.

Larry E Humes1.   

Abstract

Following a brief tutorial on the application of factor analysis to hearing aid outcome measures, three studies of hearing aid outcome measures in elderly adults are presented and analyzed. Two of the studies were completed at Indiana University (IU-1 and IU-2), and one was a collaborative multisite study by the Veterans Administration and the National Institute of Deafness and other Communication Disorders (NIDCD/VA). IU-1 measured hearing aid outcome in 173 elderly wearers of single-channel, linear, in-the-ear hearing aids with output-limiting compression, whereas IU-2 obtained the same extensive set of outcome measures from 53 elderly wearers of two-channel, wide-dynamic-range compression, in-the-canal hearing aids. In the NIDCD/VA study, 333 to 338 participants wore three single-channel circuits in succession, with each circuit housed within an in-the-ear shell. The three circuits included in that study and in this analysis were: (1) linear with peak clipping, (2) linear with output-limiting compression, and (3) single-channel, wide-dynamic-range compression. Evaluation of the many outcome measures completed in each study using principal components factor analysis revealed that from three (both IU studies) to five (NIDCD/VA study) principal components captured the individual differences in hearing aid outcome. This was independent of hearing aid type (in-the-ear or in-the-canal) and circuitry. Subsequent multiple regression analyses of individual differences in performance along each dimension of hearing aid outcome revealed that these individual differences could be accounted for reasonably well by various prefit variables for some dimensions of outcome, but not others. In general, measures of speech recognition performance were well accounted for by prefit measures, with the best predictors being hearing loss, cognitive performance, and age. Measures of hearing aid usage were less well accounted for by prefit measures, with the most accurate predictor of current hearing aid use being prior hearing aid use. The outcome dimension accounted for most poorly was that associated with hearing aid satisfaction, with subjective measures of aided sound quality being the best predictor of performance along this dimension of hearing aid outcome. Additional multicenter, large-scale studies are needed to develop more complete models of hearing aid outcome and to identify the variables that influence various aspects of hearing aid outcome. It is only through this additional research that it will be possible to optimize outcome for hearing aid wearers.

Entities:  

Year:  2003        PMID: 15004647      PMCID: PMC4168944          DOI: 10.1177/108471380300700202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Amplif        ISSN: 1084-7138


  23 in total

1.  Longitudinal changes in hearing aid satisfaction and usage in the elderly over a period of one or two years after hearing aid delivery.

Authors:  Larry E Humes; Dana L Wilson; Nancy N Barlow; Carolyn B Garner; Nathan Amos
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: A crossover trial. NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial Group.

Authors:  V D Larson; D W Williams; W G Henderson; L E Luethke; L B Beck; D Noffsinger; R H Wilson; R A Dobie; G B Haskell; G W Bratt; J E Shanks; P Stelmachowicz; G A Studebaker; A E Boysen; A Donahue; R Canalis; S A Fausti; B Z Rappaport
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-10-11       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Dimensions of hearing aid outcome.

Authors:  L E Humes
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Personality and the subjective assessment of hearing aids.

Authors:  R M Cox; G C Alexander; G Gray
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids.

Authors:  H Dillon; A James; J Ginis
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Examination of the validity of auditory traits and tests.

Authors:  G A Flamme
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2001-09

7.  Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns.

Authors:  Edward Guadagnoli; Wayne F Velicer
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 17.737

8.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models.

Authors:  P M Bentler
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 17.737

9.  Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  R M Cox; G C Alexander; C Gilmore; K M Pusakulich
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired.

Authors:  D Byrne; A Parkinson; P Newall
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  16 in total

1.  Hearing aid satisfaction: what does research from the past 20 years say?

Authors:  Lena L N Wong; Louise Hickson; Bradley McPherson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2003

Review 2.  Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation.

Authors:  M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller; Gurjit Singh
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-03

3.  Development of the Device-Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) scale.

Authors:  Robyn M Cox; Genevieve C Alexander; Jingjing Xu
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Modern prescription theory and application: realistic expectations for speech recognition with hearing AIDS.

Authors:  Earl E Johnson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2013-11-18

5.  Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures.

Authors:  James R Dornhoffer; Ted A Meyer; Judy R Dubno; Theodore R McRackan
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Factors affecting outcomes on the TEN (SPL) test in adults with hearing loss.

Authors:  Benjamin W Y Hornsby; J Andrew Dundas
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Does hearing aid use affect audiovisual integration in mild hearing impairment?

Authors:  Anja Gieseler; Maike A S Tahden; Christiane M Thiel; Hans Colonius
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 8.  Audiologic management of older adults with hearing loss and compromised cognitive/psychoacoustic auditory processing capabilities.

Authors:  Patricia B Kricos
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-03

9.  The Effects of Static and Moving Spectral Ripple Sensitivity on Unaided and Aided Speech Perception in Noise.

Authors:  Christi W Miller; Joshua G W Bernstein; Xuyang Zhang; Yu-Hsiang Wu; Ruth A Bentler; Kelly Tremblay
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Obliteration of radical cavities with autogenous cortical bone; long-term results.

Authors:  Akram M Abdel-Rahman; Matti Pietola; Teemu J Kinnari; Hans Ramsay; Jussi Jero; Antti A Aarnisalo
Journal:  BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord       Date:  2008-07-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.