Literature DB >> 30052097

The use of self-report measures to examine changes in perception in response to fittings using different signal processing parameters.

Melinda Anderson1, Varsha Rallapalli2, Tim Schoof3, Pamela Souza4, Kathryn Arehart5.   

Abstract

Clinicians have long used self-report methods to assess hearing aid benefit. However, there are fewer data as to whether self-report instruments can be used to compare differences between signal processing settings. This study examined how self-perceived performance varied as a function of modifications in signal processing using two self-report measures. Data were collected as part of a double-blind randomised crossover clinical trial. Participants were fit with two fittings: mild processing (slow time constants, disabled frequency lowering) and strong processing (fast time constants, frequency lowering enabled). The speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing (SSQ) questionnaire and the Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (EAR) questionnaire were collected at multiple time points. Older adults with sensorineural hearing loss who had not used hearing aids within the previous year participated (49 older adults were consented; 40 were included in the final data analyses). Findings show that listeners report a difference in perceived performance when hearing aid features are modified. Both self-report measures were able to capture this change in perceived performance. Self-report measures provide a tool for capturing changes in perceived performance when hearing aid processing features are modified and may enhance provision of an evidence-based hearing aid fitting.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hearing aid satisfaction; clinical trial; hearing aid; signal perception

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30052097      PMCID: PMC6364848          DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1490035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Audiol        ISSN: 1499-2027            Impact factor:   2.117


  17 in total

1.  Expectations about hearing aids and their relationship to fitting outcome.

Authors:  R M Cox; G C Alexander
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2000 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ).

Authors:  William Noble; Stuart Gatehouse
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Acclimatization to hearing aids.

Authors:  Piers Dawes; Kevin J Munro; Sridhar Kalluri; Brent Edwards
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment.

Authors:  Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.562

5.  Short-term and long-term hearing aid benefit and user satisfaction: a comparison between two fitting protocols.

Authors:  Lu-Feng Shi; Karen A Doherty; Tammy M Kordas; Joseph T Pellegrino
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit.

Authors:  Harvey B Abrams; Theresa H Chisolm; Megan McManus; Rachel McArdle
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Development and validation of the effectiveness of [corrected] auditory rehabilitation scale.

Authors:  Bevan Yueh; Jennifer A McDowell; Margaret Collins; Pamela E Souza; Carl F Loovis; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-10

8.  Construct Validity of the Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiology Research.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Wu; Elizabeth Stangl; Xuyang Zhang; Ruth A Bentler
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. II. Experienced users, fitted unilaterally.

Authors:  José I Alcántara; Brian C J Moore; Josephine Marriage
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  Time-Varying Distortions of Binaural Information by Bilateral Hearing Aids: Effects of Nonlinear Frequency Compression.

Authors:  Andrew D Brown; Francisco A Rodriguez; Cory D F Portnuff; Matthew J Goupell; Daniel J Tollin
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 3.293

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for Best Practice in the Audiological Management of Adults with Severe and Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Laura Turton; Pamela Souza; Linda Thibodeau; Louise Hickson; René Gifford; Judith Bird; Maren Stropahl; Lorraine Gailey; Bernadette Fulton; Nerina Scarinci; Katie Ekberg; Barbra Timmer
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2020-12-16

2.  Understanding Variability in Individual Response to Hearing Aid Signal Processing in Wearable Hearing Aids.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Kathryn Arehart; Tim Schoof; Melinda Anderson; Dorina Strori; Lauren Balmert
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 3.  Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.

Authors:  Chris Gibbons; Ian Porter; Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley; Stanimir Stoilov; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Elena Tsangaris; Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli; Antoinette Davey; Elizabeth J Gibbons; Anna Kotzeva; Jonathan Evans; Philip J van der Wees; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Joanne Greenhalgh; Peter Bower; Jordi Alonso; Jose M Valderas
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-10-12
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.