Results in using the Freiburger monosyllabic speech test in noise without and with hearing aids

Auditory rehabilitation after temporal bone fracture with cochlear implants - a case control study

OBJECTIVES

Temporal bone fracture can cause posttraumatic deafness. Sequelae like ossification or obliteration of the cochlea can impact the outcome of cochlear implantation. This study highlights the effect of localisation of the fracture to morphologic, electric and functional criteria.

METHODS

The study group consists of patients suffering from hearing loss caused by temporal bone fracture (n = 61 ears). Patients were divided into otic capsule sparing (OCS) and otic capsule involving (OCI) fractures. The OCI group was additionally divided into subgroups with or without signs of ossification inside the cochlea. Postoperative imaging, hearing tests and electrode impedances were analysed.

RESULTS

The results of postoperative hearing rehabilitation showed lower speech understanding scores for the OCI group, especially for the ossification group. OCI fractures with signs of ossification showed increased impedances. Patients in the OCI group suffered more frequently from facial nerve stimulation (FNS). FNS was most frequently observed within the ossification group.

CONCLUSION

Cochlear implantation in patients with temporal bone fracture is adequate therapy for the treatment of fracture-induced deafness. In long-term observation, these patients show comparable results with regular cochlear implant (CI) patients. Implantation should be performed as soon as possible after hearing loss, before obstructing obliteration or ossification of the cochlea start.

[Correlation between the APHAB questionnaire and the Freiburg monosyllabic test without + with noise]

BACKGROUND

Questionnaires, e. g. the APHAB, and speech-audiometry are the most used elements in measuring the success of hearing aid fitting (HAF). This study investigates the correlations between the results of the Freiburg monosyllabic word test without and with noise (FBE, FBE-S) and the results of the APHAB before and after HAF.

METHODS

Data of the FBE, the FBE-S, and the APHAB, generated within HAF of 156 subjects were analyzed. After exclusion of a normal distribution of the data, Spearman's correlation and Cohen's effect size were determined.

RESULTS

73 (46.8 %) of the 156 subjects were females, and 83 (53.2 %) males. No significant correlation could be found between the EC-, the RV-, and the cumulative ECBNRV-subscale and the benefit of HAF in the FBE and FBE-S (EC: ease of communication, BN: background noise, RV: reverberation). Most of the remaining coefficients of correlation had a weak positive effect size. A middle positive effect size could only be demonstrated for 6 combinations, for the EC-subscale mostly.

CONCLUSION

The not strong effect sizes could assume that the results in speech-audiometry and the APHAB are not independent and complementing each other as parameters of hearing loss and benefit in HAF. The effect size could be explained by individually different possibilities for the compensation of hearing loss.

Adaptation to noise in normal and impaired hearing

Many aspects of hearing function are negatively affected by background noise. Listeners, however, have some ability to adapt to background noise. For instance, the detection of pure tones and the recognition of isolated words embedded in noise can improve gradually as tones and words are delayed a few hundred milliseconds in the noise. While some evidence suggests that adaptation to noise could be mediated by the medial olivocochlear reflex, adaptation can occur for people who do not have a functional reflex. Since adaptation can facilitate hearing in noise, and hearing in noise is often harder for hearing-impaired than for normal-hearing listeners, it is conceivable that adaptation is impaired with hearing loss. It remains unclear, however, if and to what extent this is the case, or whether impaired adaptation contributes to the greater difficulties experienced by hearing-impaired listeners understanding speech in noise. Here, we review adaptation to noise, the mechanisms potentially contributing to this adaptation, and factors that might reduce the ability to adapt to background noise, including cochlear hearing loss, cochlear synaptopathy, aging, and noise exposure. The review highlights few knowns and many unknowns about adaptation to noise, and thus paves the way for further research on this topic.

Objective and Subjective Outcomes in Patients with Hearing Aids: A Cross-Sectional, Comparative, Associational Study

INTRODUCTION

Outcome assessment for hearing aids (HAs) is an essential part of HA fitting and validation. There is no consensus about the best or standard approach for evaluating HA outcomes. And, the relationship between objective and subjective measures is ambiguous. This study aimed to determine the outcomes after HA fitting, explore correlations between subjective benefit and acoustic gain improvement as well as objective audiologic tests, and investigate several variables that may improve patients' perceived benefits.

METHODS

Eighty adults with bilateral symmetrical hearing loss using HAs for at least 1 month were included in this study. All subjects completed the pure tone average (PTA) threshold and word recognition score (WRS) tests in unaided and aided conditions. We also administered the Chinese version of International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), to measure participants' subjective benefits. Objective HA benefit (acoustic gain improvement) was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between aided and unaided conditions indicated with ΔPTA and ΔWRS. Thus, patients' baseline hearing levels were taken into account. Correlations were assessed among objective audiologic tests (PTA and WRS), acoustic gain improvement (ΔPTA and ΔWRS), multiple potential factors, and IOI-HA overall scores.

RESULTS

PTA decreased significantly, but WRS did not increase when aided listening was compared to unaided listening. Negative correlations between PTAs and IOI-HA scores were significant but weak (r = -0.370 and r = -0.393, all p < 0.05). Significant weak positive correlations were found between WRSs and IOI-HA (r = 0.386 and r = 0.309, all p < 0.05). However, there was no correlation among ΔPTA, ΔWRS, and IOI-HA (r = 0.056 and r = -0.086, all p > 0.05). Moreover, 2 nonaudiological factors (age and daily use time) were significantly correlated with IOI-HA (r = -0.269 and r = 0.242, all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Correlations among objective audiologic tests, acoustic gain, and subjective patient-reported outcomes were weak or absent. Subjective questionnaires and objective tests do not reflect the same hearing capability. Therefore, it is advisable to evaluate both objective and subjective outcomes when analyzing HA benefits on a regular basis and pay equal attention to nonaudiological and audiological factors.

Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid: Objective Measures of Binaural Benefit

Cochlear implants (CI) improve hearing for the severely hearing impaired. With an extension of implantation candidacy, today many CI listeners use a hearing aid on their contralateral ear, referred to as bimodal listening. It is uncertain, however, whether the brains of bimodal listeners can combine the electrical and acoustical sound information and how much CI experience is needed to achieve an improved performance with bimodal listening. Patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss undergoing implant surgery were tested in their ability to understand speech in quiet and in noise, before and again 3 and 6 months after provision of a CI. Results of these bimodal listeners were compared to age-matched, normal hearing controls (NH). The benefit of adding a contralateral hearing aid was calculated in terms of head shadow, binaural summation, binaural squelch, and spatial release from masking from the results of a sentence recognition test. Beyond that, bimodal benefit was estimated from the difference in amplitudes and latencies of the N1, P2, and N2 potentials of the brains' auditory evoked response (AEP) toward speech. Data of fifteen participants contributed to the results. CI provision resulted in significant improvement of speech recognition with the CI ear, and in taking advantage of the head shadow effect for understanding speech in noise. Some amount of binaural processing was suggested by a positive binaural summation effect 6 month post-implantation that correlated significantly with symmetry of pure tone thresholds. Moreover, a significant negative correlation existed between binaural summation and latency of the P2 potential. With CI experience, morphology of the N1 and P2 potentials in the AEP response approximated that of NH, whereas, N2 remained different. Significant AEP differences between monaural and binaural processing were shown for NH and for bimodal listeners 6 month post-implantation. Although the grand-averaged difference in N1 amplitude between monaural and binaural listening was similar for NH and the bimodal group, source localization showed group-dependent differences in auditory and speech-relevant cortex, suggesting different processing in the bimodal listeners.

Hearing Impairment in Old Age

BACKGROUND

Hearing impairment associated with old age (presbycusis) is becoming more common because the population is aging.

METHODS

This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective search in Medline and Google Scholar, including individual studies, meta-analyses, guidelines, Cochrane reviews, and other reviews.

RESULTS

The cardinal symptom of presbycusis is impaired communication due to bilateral hearing impairment. Patients may be unaware of the problem for a long time because of its insidious progression. Evidence suggests that untreated hearing impair- ment in old age can have extensive adverse effects on the patient's mental, physical, and social well-being. Early detection is possible with the aid of simple diagnostic tests or suitable questionnaires. In most cases, bilateral hearing aids are an effective treatment. Surgery is rarely indicated. For patients with uni- or bilateral deafness, a cochlear implant is the treatment of choice. These treatments can improve many patients' quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The small amount of evidence that is currently available suggests that presbycusis is underdiagnosed and under- treated in Germany. Early detection by physicians of all specialties, followed in each case by a specialized differential diagnostic evaluation, is a desirable goal.

Die Verständlichkeitskurve für den Freiburger Einsilbertest im Störschall mit einem Signal-Rausch-Abstand (SNR) von 5 dB

Hintergrund

Der Freiburger Einsilbertest (FBE) ist seit Langem einer der wesentlichen deutschen Sprachhörtests. Seit einiger Zeit wird er auch zur Messung der Hörverbesserung im Rahmen einer Hörgeräteversorgung im Störschall verwendet (FBE-S). Mit dieser Studie soll eine Verständlichkeitskurve für den Freiburger Einsilbertest im Störschall mit fixem Signal-Störschall-Verhältnis von 5 dB bei verschiedenen Schalldruckpegeln bestimmt werden.

Methode

Im Herbst 2018 wurden 60 normalhörende, muttersprachlich Deutsch sprechende Probanden im Alter zwischen 18 und 31 Jahren in der Klinik für HNO-Heilkunde des Bundeswehrkrankenhauses in Hamburg untersucht. Das Sprachverstehen wurde mit einer Testliste des FBE mit einem Schalldruckpegel von 15 bis 90 dB und einem 5 dB niedrigeren Störschall in 5‑dB-Schritten gemessen. Anschließend wurden von den Verständlichkeitsquoten die Mittelwerte gebildet und die 95%-Konfidenzintervalle (95%-KI) bestimmt.

Ergebnisse

Es nahmen 29 weibliche und 31 männliche Probanden an der Untersuchung teil. Das mittlere Alter aller Probanden betrug 24,32 Jahre (±3,39 Jahre). In der Varianzanalyse für fixe Effekte mit der Verständlichkeit als abhängiger Variablen zeigte sich ein hochsignifikanter Zusammenhang zwischen den Schalldruckpegeln des Sprach- und Störschalls auf der einen Seite und der Verständlichkeit auf der anderen Seite (p < 0,001). Die gemittelten Verständlichkeitsquoten und zugehörigen 95%-KI sowie die Häufigkeitsverteilungen wurden tabellarisch und grafisch dargestellt.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Verständlichkeitskurve des FBE‑S ist im Vergleich zur Normkurve des FBE nach rechts verschoben. Die gemittelte Kurve des FBE‑S erreicht bei einem Schalldruckpegel von 70 dB und einem Störschalldruckpegel von 65 dB den Sättigungsbereich von 90 % Verständlichkeit (zum Vergleich: Der Sättigungspunkt von 100 % Verständlichkeit liegt beim FBE ohne Störschall bei 55 dB). Durch die hier vorgestellte Verständlichkeitskurve lassen sich individuelle Messergebnisse ohne und mit Hörgeräten besser interpretieren. Künftig sollte der Hörgewinn für Hörgeräte möglicherweise bei niedrigeren Schalldruckpegeln erfolgen als heute.

Changes in Speech-Related Brain Activity During Adaptation to Electro-Acoustic Hearing

Objectives: Hearing improves significantly with bimodal provision, i.e., a cochlear implant (CI) at one ear and a hearing aid (HA) at the other, but performance shows a high degree of variability resulting in substantial uncertainty about the performance that can be expected by the individual CI user. The objective of this study was to explore how auditory event-related potentials (AERPs) of bimodal listeners in response to spoken words approximate the electrophysiological response of normal hearing (NH) listeners. Study Design: Explorative prospective analysis during the first 6 months of bimodal listening using a within-subject repeated measures design. Setting: Academic tertiary care center. Participants: Twenty-seven adult participants with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who received a HiRes 90K CI and continued use of a HA at the non-implanted ear. Age-matched NH listeners served as controls. Intervention: Cochlear implantation. Main Outcome Measures: Obligatory auditory evoked potentials N1 and P2, and the event-related N2 potential in response to monosyllabic words and their reversed sound traces before, as well as 3 and 6 months post-implantation. The task required word/non-word classification. Stimuli were presented within speech-modulated noise. Loudness of word/non-word signals was adjusted individually to achieve the same intelligibility across groups and assessments. Results: Intelligibility improved significantly with bimodal hearing, and the N1-P2 response approximated the morphology seen in NH with enhanced and earlier responses to the words compared to their reversals. For bimodal listeners, a prominent negative deflection was present between 370 and 570 ms post stimulus onset (N2), irrespective of stimulus type. This was absent for NH controls; hence, this response did not approximate the NH response during the study interval. N2 source localization evidenced extended activation of general cognitive areas in frontal and prefrontal brain areas in the CI group. Conclusions: Prolonged and spatially extended processing in bimodal CI users suggests employment of additional auditory-cognitive mechanisms during speech processing. This does not reduce within 6 months of bimodal experience and may be a correlate of the enhanced listening effort described by CI listeners.

[The adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic test in noise : Development of a procedure and comparison of the results with the Oldenburg sentence test]

BACKGROUND

Whereas sentence tests are commonly performed using an adaptive procedure, this method has not yet been transferred to the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test, the most important word test. When using different procedures, a comparison of results between sentence and word tests is not possible. Therefore, an adaptive procedure which has proven itself in sentence tests was transferred to the Freiburg monosyllabic test in noise. The results of the new procedure were compared to the standard of sentence tests, i.e., the Oldenburg sentence test.

METHODS

The adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test and the Oldenburg sentence test were applied in 40 otologically normal subjects in a randomized order. Results were analyzed with respect to time requirements, possible gender differences, the influence of test order, and correlation of test results.

RESULTS

The time required for the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test was significantly higher than for the Oldenburg sentence test. No significant impact of gender or test order could be shown. The mean signal-to-noise ratio for 50% speech discrimination of the Oldenburg sentence test was significantly smaller than for the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic speech test. No correlation could be shown between the results of the two tests CONCLUSION: The Freiburg monosyllabic test can not only be used for quantifying discrimination loss in percentage terms, but also to measure the 50% speech recognition threshold with an adaptive algorithm. However, the procedure of the adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic test is more time consuming than that of the Oldenburg sentence test. Concerning a possible missing correlation between the results for 50% speech discrimination, further studies with hearing-impaired persons are needed.

Predictors of Hearing-Aid Outcomes

Over 360 million people worldwide suffer from disabling hearing loss. Most of them can be treated with hearing aids. Unfortunately, performance with hearing aids and the benefit obtained from using them vary widely across users. Here, we investigate the reasons for such variability. Sixty-eight hearing-aid users or candidates were fitted bilaterally with nonlinear hearing aids using standard procedures. Treatment outcome was assessed by measuring aided speech intelligibility in a time-reversed two-talker background and self-reported improvement in hearing ability. Statistical predictive models of these outcomes were obtained using linear combinations of 19 predictors, including demographic and audiological data, indicators of cochlear mechanical dysfunction and auditory temporal processing skills, hearing-aid settings, working memory capacity, and pretreatment self-perceived hearing ability. Aided intelligibility tended to be better for younger hearing-aid users with good unaided intelligibility in quiet and with good temporal processing abilities. Intelligibility tended to improve by increasing amplification for low-intensity sounds and by using more linear amplification for high-intensity sounds. Self-reported improvement in hearing ability was hard to predict but tended to be smaller for users with better working memory capacity. Indicators of cochlear mechanical dysfunction, alone or in combination with hearing settings, did not affect outcome predictions. The results may be useful for improving hearing aids and setting patients’ expectations.

[Evaluation of hearing aid rehabilitation using the Freiburg Monosyllabic Test]

The benefit of hearing aids is not always directly subjectively perceivable. Therefore, objective and quantifiable speech audiometric measurements are required. Beside acoustic gain measurements and structured interviews, speech audiometry in quiet and in noise is one of the three pillars of hearing aid evaluation.The Freiburg monosyllabic test has been used for decades for hearing aid prescription and evaluation in German speaking countries. Relative and absolute targets can be individually defined for the rehabilitation of speech perception by hearing aids as assessed by the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet and at conversational levels.The general applicability of speech audiometric measurements in noise is limited. Alternative ("modern") methods and the definitions of noise situations relevant to everyday life have been discussed for years. However, the introduction of these methods into everyday use has proven difficult. On one hand, there is comparatively little practical experience; on the other, it has not yet been demonstrated what additional benefits these more complicated measurements might have for standard hearing aid evaluations and hearing aid users.

Variability of word discrimination scores in clinical practice and consequences on their sensitivity to hearing loss

Speech perception scores are widely used to assess patient's functional hearing, yet most linguistic material used in these audiometric tests dates to before the availability of large computerized linguistic databases. In an ENT clinic population of 120 patients with median hearing loss of 43-dB HL, we quantified the variability and the sensitivity of speech perception scores to hearing loss, measured using disyllabic word lists, as a function of both the number of ten-word lists and type of scoring used (word, syllables or phonemes). The mean word recognition scores varied significantly across lists from 54 to 68%. The median of the variability of the word recognition score ranged from 30% for one ten-word list down to 20% for three ten-word lists. Syllabic and phonemic scores showed much less variability with standard deviations decreasing by 1.15 with the use of syllabic scores and by 1.45 with phonemic scores. The sensitivity of each list to hearing loss and distortions varied significantly. There was an increase in the minimum effect size that could be seen for syllabic scores compared to word scores, with no significant further improvement with phonemic scores. The use of at least two ten-word lists, quoted in syllables rather than in whole words, contributed to a large decrease in variability and an increase in sensitivity to hearing loss. However, those results emphasize the need of using updated linguistic material for clinical speech score assessments.

[Hearing aid fitting: Effect of doubling the standard rate on compliance, quality of results, and excess payments]

BACKGROUND

This study investigates the effect that doubling the standard rate for hearing aid fitting which is covered by statutory insurance has had on the size of excess payments and compliance, as well as on benefits for patients and their satisfaction.

METHODS

In April 2014, 859 members of a statutory insurance scheme (hkk) who received hearing aids in the 6 months prior to the reform were questioned on the timing and financial details of their hearing aid fitting, as well as on treatment compliance and quality of the results using a standardized questionnaire. In October 2014, the same questionnaire was used to collect these data from a further 622 insurance holders who had received hearing aids in the 8 months following introduction of the new regulation. Most of the questions concerning hearing quality corresponded to those of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire.

RESULTS

The project revealed a statistically significant decrease of 6 percent points in the proportion of hearing aid users who had to pay any excess whatsoever; from 80.6% to 74.1%. However, 40% of the insured persons continued to pay an excess of 1000 euros and more. The subjective hearing quality remained practically unimproved by the reform and was statistically, almost without exception, independent of whether hearing aid users wore expensive devices associated with a large excess, or devices available at the standard rate. Finally, the study confirmed a previously recognized usage pattern characterized by noncompliance. For example, approximately 40% of hearing aid users did not wear their device in the everyday environment. This observation was independent of the size of the excess and the timing of the most recent visit to the hearing aid acoustician.

CONCLUSION

Despite doubling of the standard rate, three quarters of patients pay an excess--sometimes a substantial one. The subjective hearing quality was not improved by doubling the standard rate; the majority of patients continue to complain of considerable problems with hearing in difficult situations (environments with background or reverberant noise). Satisfaction with hearing quality is neither dependent on the doubling of the standard rate, nor on whether or not an excess was paid. Compliance may possibly be improved by structured follow-up, which should involve the prescribing otorhinolaryngologists, as well as phoniatrists, pedaudiologists, and hearing aid acousticians.

[Influence of hearing aids on monosyllabic test score and subjective everyday hearing]

BACKGROUND

Pure tone and speech audiometry are essential methods for examining the indication for hearing aids, as well as for hearing aid evaluation. Additionally, the subjective benefit of hearing aids has to be evaluated with appropriate questionnaires. The aim of the present study was to investigate the correlation between speech audiometry data and the results of a simple and user-friendly questionnaire, as well as to provide normative data for subjective benefit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 136 hearing aid users with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were analyzed retrospectively. Pure tone thresholds and Freiburg monosyllabic speech perception in the binaural situation were measured at 65 dB in quiet and in noise (signal-to-noise ratio, SNR = +5 dB), with and without hearing aids. Additionally, subjective hearing in everyday life was recorded using the 12-item Oldenburg Inventory.

RESULTS

Improvement of speech perception with hearing aids for the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet was 32.0 percentage points on average; in noise, there was an average improvement of 16.4 percentage points. There was a strong correlation between the results of pure tone and speech audiometry. With hearing aids, patients scored their everyday hearing using the Oldenburg Inventory on average 1.4 scale points better than without hearing aids. Results of the Oldenburg Inventory correlate with both pure tone and speech audiometry.

CONCLUSION

Hearing aid evaluation should include both speech audiometry and systematic measurement of the subjective benefit using a suitable questionnaire. In combination, the Freiburg monosyllabic test and the Oldenburg Inventory allow for quick and comprehensive evaluation.