Literature DB >> 34224547

Influence of Cochlear Implant Use on Perceived Listening Effort in Adult and Pediatric Cases of Unilateral and Asymmetric Hearing Loss.

Erin M Lopez1, Margaret T Dillon1, Lisa R Park1, Meredith A Rooth1, Margaret E Richter2, Nicholas J Thompson1, Brendan P O'Connell1, Harold C Pillsbury1, Kevin D Brown1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Assess the influence of cochlear implant (CI) use on the perceived listening effort of adult and pediatric subjects with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) or asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective cohort.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Adults and children with UHL or AHL. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation. Subjects received their CI as part of a clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of cochlear implantation in cases of UHL and AHL. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to the Listening Effort pragmatic subscale on the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) or SSQ for Children with Impaired Hearing (SSQ-C) were compared over the study period. Subjects or their parents completed the questionnaires preoperatively and at predetermined postactivation intervals. For the adult subjects, responses were compared to word recognition in quiet and sentence recognition in noise.
RESULTS: Forty adult subjects (n = 20 UHL, n = 20 AHL) and 16 pediatric subjects with UHL enrolled and underwent cochlear implantation. Subjects in all three groups reported a significant reduction in perceived listening effort within the initial months of CI use (p < 0.001; η2 ≥ 0.351). The perceived benefit was significantly correlated with speech recognition in noise for the adult subjects with UHL at the 12-month interval (r(20) = .59, p = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: Adult and pediatric CI recipients with UHL or AHL report a reduction in listening effort with CI use as compared to their preoperative experiences. Use of the SSQ and SSQ-C Listening Effort pragmatic subscale may provide additional information about a CI recipient's experience beyond the abilities measured in the sound booth.
Copyright © 2021, Otology & Neurotology, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34224547      PMCID: PMC8448920          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003261

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.619


  36 in total

1.  Measuring listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults with unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants or normal hearing.

Authors:  Kathryn C Hughes; Karyn L Galvin
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2013-06

2.  Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman; Leonid M Litvak; Susan Van Wie; Rene H Gifford; Philipos C Loizou; Louise M Loiselle; Tyler Oakes; Sarah Cook
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 3.  Listening-Related Fatigue in Children With Unilateral Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Fred H Bess; Hilary Davis; Stephen Camarata; Benjamin W Y Hornsby
Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  The Impact of Auditory Spectral Resolution on Listening Effort Revealed by Pupil Dilation.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Jan R Edwards; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Listening Effort and Speech Recognition with Frequency Compression Amplification for Children and Adults with Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Marc A Brennan; Dawna Lewis; Ryan McCreery; Judy Kopun; Joshua M Alexander
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Listening effort and fatigue: what exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group 'white paper'.

Authors:  Ronan McGarrigle; Kevin J Munro; Piers Dawes; Andrew J Stewart; David R Moore; Johanna G Barry; Sygal Amitay
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  Effects of age and hearing loss on stream segregation based on interaural time differences.

Authors:  Christian Füllgrabe; Brian C J Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Individual Variations in Effort: Assessing Pupillometry for the Hearing Impaired.

Authors:  Anita E Wagner; Leanne Nagels; Paolo Toffanin; Jane M Opie; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Two-eared listening in dynamic situations.

Authors:  Stuart Gatehouse; Michael Akeroyd
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.117

10.  The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ).

Authors:  Stuart Gatehouse; William Noble
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.117

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  The Limitations of FDA Criteria: Inconsistencies with Clinical Practice, Findings, and Adult Criteria as a Barrier to Pediatric Implantation.

Authors:  Lisa R Park; Erika B Gagnon; Kevin D Brown
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2021-12-09
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.