Different technological alternatives are nowadays offered to persons with a severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss (HFHL). However, benefits of those technologies are still not clear.
OBJECTIVE:
To explore the benefits provided by frequency-compression (FC) or frequency-transposition (FT) hearing aids (HAs), and the electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) cochlear implant, from the perspective of users with a HFHL.
METHODS:
A qualitative case study research design was selected. Ten adults with a HFHL who participated in a previous FC, FT and EAS trial were enrolled. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted. Participants were questioned about their experience with each technology. Data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS:
Participants reported better speech understanding in quiet and noisy situations, plus improved high-frequency sound detection with both HAs. Some participants mentioned lower levels of listening effort and fatigue and an improvement in self-confidence, which led to increased social participation. Most participants preferred FC or FT to their own HAs. The participant who received an EAS implant reported better performances with this technology.
CONCLUSIONS:
From the participants’ perspective, the three technologies can deliver greater benefits than conventional amplification for people with a severe-to-profound HFHL, but the EAS implant appears as potentially more beneficial than both HAs.
AlexanderJM. Individual variability in recognition of frequency-lowered speech. Seminars in Hearing.2013; 34(2): 86-109.
2.
von IlbergCBaumannUKieferJTilleinJAdunkaO. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: A review of the first decade. Audiology & Neurotology.2011; 16(Suppl 2): 1-30.
3.
GlistaDScollieSBagattoMSeewaldRParsaVJohnsonA. Evaluation of nonlinear frequency compression: clinical outcomes. International Journal of Audiology.2009; 48(9): 632-44.
4.
GlistaDScollieSSulkersJ. Perceptual acclimatization post nonlinear frequency compression hearing aid fitting in older children. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research.2012; 55: 1765-87.
5.
KukFKeenanDKorhonenPLauCC. Efficacy of linear frequency transposition on consonant identification in quiet and in noise. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.2009; 20(8): 465-79.
6.
Miller-HansenDRNelsonPBWidenJESimonSD. Evaluating the benefit of speech recoding hearing aids in children. American Journal of Audiology.2003; 12(2): 106-13.
7.
NyffelerM. The Naída power hearing instrument family. Field test results demonstrate better speech clarity unparalleled in its class. Audiology Online. September2008.
8.
SimpsonAHersbachAAMcDermottHJ. Improvements in speech perception with an experimental nonlinear frequency compression hearing device. International Journal of Audiology.2005; 44(5): 281-92.
9.
SmithJDannMBrownPM. An evaluation of frequency transposition for hearing-impaired school-age children. Deafness & Education International.2009; 11(2): 62-82.
HelbigS, HeyningPKieferJBaumannUKleine-PunteABrockmeierH, et al. Combined electric acoustic stimulation with the PULSARCI(100) implant system using the FLEX(EAS) electrode array. Acta Otolaryngologica.2011; 131(6): 585-95.
12.
RolandJTGantzBJWaltzmanSBParkinsonAJMulticenterClinicalTrialG. United States multicenter clinical trial of the Cochlear Nucleus Hybrid implant system. The Laryngoscope.2016; 126(1): 175-81.
13.
SkarzynskiHLorensAMatusiakMPorowskiMSkarzynskiPHJamesCJ. Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant. Audiology & Neurotology.2012; 17(2): 82-91.
14.
LenarzTJamesCCudaDFitzgeraldO’Connor AFrachetBFrijnsJH, et al. European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant. International Journal of Audiology.2013; 52(12): 838-48.
15.
PrentissSSykesKStaeckerH. Partial deafness cochlear implantation at the University of Kansas: techniques and outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.2010; 21(3): 197-203.
16.
HottonMBergeronF.A systematic review about the effectiveness of hearing technologies on speech perception outcomes for people with a severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. In press.
17.
ChisolmTHJohnsonCEDanhauerJLPortzLJAbramsHBLesnerS, et al. A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force On the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in Adults. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.2007; 18(2): 151-83.
18.
FergusonMAWoolleyAMunroKJ. The impact of self-efficacy, expectations, and readiness on hearing aid outcomes. International Journal of Audiology.2016; 55(Suppl 3): S34-41.
19.
HicksonLMeyerCLovelockKLampertMKhanA. Factors associated with success with hearing aids in older adults. International Journal of Audiology.2014; 53(Suppl 1): S18-27.
20.
NgJHLokeAY. Determinants of hearing-aid adoption and use among the elderly: a systematic review. International Journal of Audiology.2015; 54(5): 291-300.
21.
GatehouseS. Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear & Hearing.1994; 15(1): 30-49.
22.
BagattoMScollieSGlistaDParsaVSeewaldR. Case study outcomes of hearing impaired listeners using nonlinear frequency compression technology. Audiology Online. March 2008.
23.
GiffordRHDormanMFSpahrAJMcKarnsSA. Effect of digital frequency compression (DFC) on speech recognition in candidates for combined electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research.2007; 50(5): 1194-202.
24.
NyffelerM. Study finds that non-linear frequency compression boosts speech intelligibility. Hearing Journal.2008; 61(12): 22-6.
25.
ParentTCChmielRJergerJ. Comparison of performance with frequency transposition hearing aids and conventional hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.1997; 8(5): 355-65.
26.
SimpsonAHersbachAAMcDermottHJ. Frequency-compression outcomes in listeners with steeply sloping audiograms. International Journal of Audiology.2006; 45(11): 619-29.
27.
AuriemmoJKukFLauCMarshallSThieleNPikoraM, et al. Effect of linear frequency transposition on speech recognition and production of school-age children. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.2009; 20(5): 289-305.
28.
GalsterJValentineSDundasDFitzK. Spectral iQ: Audibly improving access to high-frequency sounds. Starkey White Papers.2011.
29.
KukFKeenanDPeetersHLauCCroseB. Critical Factors in Ensuring Efficacy of Frequency Transposition Part 2: Facilitating Initial Adjustment. Hearing Review. (April 2007) 14.
30.
KukFKeenanDPeetersHKorhonenP. Critical factors in ensuring efficacy of frequency transposition part 1: Individualizing the start frequency. Hearing Review. March 2007; 14.
31.
RobinsonJDStainsbyTHBaerTMooreBC. Evaluation of a frequency transposition algorithm using wearable hearing aids. International Journal of Audiology.2009; 48(6): 384-93.
32.
GstoettnerWVan deHeyning PO’ConnorAMoreraCSainzMVermeireK, et al. Electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a multi-centre investigation. Acta Otolaryngologica.2008; 128(9): 968-75.
33.
PunteAKVermeireKVan deHeyning P. Bilateral electric acoustic stimulation: a comparison of partial and deep cochlear electrode insertion. A longitudinal case study. Advances in Otorhinolaryngology.2010; 67: 144-52.
34.
LeeAJiangDMcLarenSNunnTDemlerJMTysomeJR, et al. Electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: experience and results of ten patients using MED-EL’s M and FlexEAS electrodes. Clinical Otolaryngology.2010; 35(3): 190-7.
35.
MertensGPunteAKCochetEDe BodtMVan deHeyning P. Long-term follow-up of hearing preservation in electric-acoustic stimulation patients. Otology & Neurotology.2014; 35(10): 1765-72.
36.
SkarzynskiHLorensAPiotrowskaAAndersonI. Partial deafness cochlear implantation provides benefit to a new population of individuals with hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngologica.2006; 126(9): 934-40.
37.
HottonMBergeronF. Effectiveness of frequency-lowering hearing aids and electric acoustic stimulation cochlear implant for treating people with a severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss. Journal of Otolaryngology ENT Research.2017; 6(3): 00162.
38.
BlatterJK. Case Study. 2008; [cited March 11, 2017]. In: The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods [Internet]. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc., 11 March 2017, 69-71.
39.
FontanaAFreyJH. The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. N.K. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The handbook of qualitative research. Second edition ed. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage,2000.
40.
GraneheimUHLundmanB. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today.2004; 24: 105-12.
41.
GubaEG. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal.1981; 29(2): 75-91.
42.
KnudsenLVLaplante-LevesqueAJonesLPremingerJENielsenCLunnerT, et al. Conducting qualitative research in audiology: a tutorial. International Journal of Audiology.2012; 51(2): 83-92.
43.
SandelowskiM. The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science.1986; 8(3): 27-37.
44.
BlameyPArtieresFBaskentDBergeronFBeynonABurkeE, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiology & Neurotology.2013; 18(1): 36-47.
45.
TylerRSParkinsonAJWoodworthGGLowderMWGantzBJ. Performance over time of adult patients using the Ineraid or nucleus cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.1997; 102(1): 508-22.
