DESIGN: For each participant, the output of the initial hearing aid fitting was compared to DSL v5.0 Child prescriptive targets and again after the fitting was adjusted using coupler-based verification and RECD measures. Outcomes for initial and adjusted fittings were examined using the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII), Parent's Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) rating scale, and speech perception tests in quiet and noise.
STUDY SAMPLE: Sixty-eight children aged 3 months to 17 years with moderate to profound hearing loss participated in the study.
RESULTS: Fit-to-targets improved significantly after hearing aids were adjusted to match targets to within 5 dB RMSE. Adjusted hearing aids provided increased aided audibility compared to initial fittings and resulted in improved speech perception scores and parent-reported hearing performance. Fifty percent of the children aged 6 to 17 years preferred their adjusted fitting compared to 10% who preferred their initial fitting.
CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in fit-to-target to a validated paediatric prescriptive formula using best practice procedures can result in improved auditory outcomes and possible self-reported satisfaction.
METHODS: Records were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP and the NIHR UK clinical trials gateway. The search included records published from 1946 to March 2020. Included studies were those as follows: (a) recruiting adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with SSD of average threshold severity worse than 70 dB HL in the worse-hearing ear and normal (or near-normal) hearing in the better-hearing ear, (b) evaluating interventions to restore bilateral and/or binaural hearing and (c) enrolling those adults in a controlled trial, before-and-after study or cross-over study. Studies that fell just short of the participant eligibility criteria were included in a separate sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Ninety-six studies were included (72 full inclusion, 24 sensitivity analysis). For fully included studies, 37 exclusively evaluated interventions to re-establish bilateral hearing and 29 exclusively evaluated interventions to restore binaural hearing. Overall, 520 outcome domains were identified (350 primary and 170 secondary). Speech-related outcome domains were the most common (74% of studies), followed by spatial-related domains (60% of studies). A total of 344 unique outcome instruments were reported. Speech-related outcome domains were measured by 73 different instruments and spatial-related domains by 43 different instruments. There was considerable variability in duration of follow-up, ranging from acute (baseline) testing to 10 years after the intervention. The sensitivity analysis identified no additional outcome domains.
CONCLUSIONS: This review identified large variability in the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in studies evaluating the therapeutic benefits and harms of SSD interventions. Reports frequently omitted information on what domains the study intended to assess, and on what instruments were used to measure which domains.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): Registration Number CRD42018084274 . Registered on 13 March 2018, last revised on 7th of May 2019.
OBJECTIVE: We estimated the long-term maintenance costs of CI including repair of speech processors, replacement of damaged parts, and battery requirements.
RESULTS: Forty-one parents of children who received CIs in Malaysian government hospitals were enrolled. The first 2 years of CI usage were covered by warranty. The cost increased three-fold from by 4 years of CI usage and then doubled by 8 years of usage. About 75% of parents commented that the costs were burdensome.
CONCLUSION: Our findings will be useful for parents whose children receive CI and will allow medical personnel to counsel the parents about the costs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 14 children with CVM/CND with unilateral cochlear implant (CI) implanted before the age of 4 years old were matched and compared with 14 children with normal inner ear structures. Their improvement in auditory performance was evaluated twice using CAP-II score and SIR scales at 6-month intervals, with the baseline evaluation done at least 6 months after implantation.
RESULTS: The average age of implantation was 31±8 and 33±7 months for the control group and the case (CVM/CND) group, respectively. Overall, there were no significant differences in outcome when comparing the entire cohort of case subjects and their matched control subjects in this study. However, the improvement in CAP-II scores and SIR scales among the case subjects in between the first and second evaluations was statistically significant (p=0.040 and p=0.034, respectively). With longer duration of CI usage, children with CVM/CND showed significant speech perception outcome evident by their SIR scales (p=0.011).
CONCLUSION: Children with radiographically malformed inner ear structures who were implanted before the age of 4 years have comparable performance to their matched counterparts, evident by their similar improvement of CAP-II scores and SIR scales over time. Hence, this group of children benefited from cochlear implantation.
METHODS: Speech-and-noise signals were presented to, and recorded from, six hearing aids mounted on a head and torso simulator. Test stimuli were nonsense words mixed with pink, cafeteria, or speech-modulated noise at 0 dB SNR. Fricatives /s, z/ were extracted from the recordings for analysis.
RESULTS: Analysis of the noise confirmed that MBNR in all hearing aids was activated for the recordings. More than 1.0 dB of acoustic change occurred to /s, z/ when MBNR was turned on in four out of the six hearing aids in the pink and cafeteria noise conditions. The acoustics of /s, z/ by female talkers were affected more than male talkers. Significant relationships between amount of noise reduction and acoustic change of /s, z/ were found. Amount of noise reduction accounts for 42.8% and 16.8% of the variability in acoustic change for /s/ and /z/ respectively.
CONCLUSION: Some clinically-available implementations of MBNR have measurable effects on the acoustics of fricatives. Possible implications for speech perception are discussed.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prescribed and measured gain of hearing aids fit according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v5 procedure for children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss; and to examine the impact of choice of prescription on predicted speech intelligibility and loudness.
RESEARCH DESIGN: Participants were fit with Phonak Naida V SP hearing aids according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures. The Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and estimated loudness were calculated using published models.
STUDY SAMPLE: The sample consisted of 16 children (30 ears) aged between 7 and 17 yr old.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The measured hearing aid gains were compared with the prescribed gains at 50 (low), 65 (medium), and 80 dB SPL (high) input levels. The goodness of fit-to-targets was quantified by calculating the average root-mean-square (RMS) error of the measured gain compared with prescriptive gain targets for 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. The significance of difference between prescriptions for hearing aid gains, SII, and loudness was examined by performing analyses of variance. Correlation analyses were used to examine the relationship between measures.
RESULTS: The DSL v5 prescribed significantly higher overall gain than the NAL-NL1 procedure for the same audiograms. For low and medium input levels, the hearing aids of all children fit with NAL-NL1 were within 5 dB RMS of prescribed targets, but 33% (10 ears) deviated from the DSL v5 targets by more than 5 dB RMS on average. For high input level, the hearing aid fittings of 60% and 43% of ears deviated by more than 5 dB RMS from targets of NAL-NL1 and DSL v5, respectively. Greater deviations from targets were associated with more severe hearing loss. On average, the SII was higher for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1 at low input level. No significant difference in SII was found between prescriptions at medium or high input level, despite greater loudness for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1.
CONCLUSIONS: Although targets between 0.25 and 2 kHz were well matched for both prescriptions in commercial hearing aids, gain targets at 4 kHz were matched for NAL-NL1 only. Although the two prescriptions differ markedly in estimated loudness, they resulted in comparable predicted speech intelligibility for medium and high input levels.