American Journal of Audiology最新文献

Purpose: Measuring working memory at hearing clinics is important. This study attempted to develop a test protocol that measures auditory working memory using a standardized monosyllabic word list in Korean Speech Audiometry (KSA).

Method: We included 25 young adults with normal hearing in this study. Participants conducted word recognition and word span tests concurrently using the KSA monosyllabic word lists. We designed four test conditions according to the presence or absence of background noise and word recall order: quiet-forward (QF), quiet-backward (QB), noise-forward, (NF), and noise-backward (NB). We implemented digit span tests in the Korean Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (K-WAIS-IV) to determine the validity of the working memory outcomes.

Results: Word recognition scores of QF and QB were significantly higher than those of NF and NB. The percentages of correctly recalled words and word recall span scores were highest in QF and lowest in NB. Overall, the Pearson correlation and multiple regression statistics showed that our word span test outcomes for QB and NF were highly associated with digit span scores on the K-WAIS-IV.

Conclusion: Our proposed test protocol showed the possibility of measuring auditory working memory and monosyllabic word recognition simultaneously by validating the results with K-WAIS-IV outcomes.

Purpose: Wideband acoustic immittance (WAI) is a promising measure of middle-ear mechanics. In contrast to standard tympanometry, which is generally measured at a single stiffness-dominated low frequency, WAI detects mechanical effects on both the mass and stiffness properties of the middle ear across a wide range of frequencies, resulting in a more comprehensive assessment of middle-ear mechanics in healthy and pathological ears. Despite a plethora of research demonstrating the clinical utility of this measure, clinical adoption of WAI is still limited. This work explores audiologists' use and perceptions of WAI, with the goal of identifying the barriers to its clinical adoption.

Method: A survey on the perception and use of WAI by clinical audiologists in the United States was developed and administered using the Research Electronic Data Capture application. The survey was distributed broadly across the United States. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and no compensation was provided.

Results: Findings from 132 survey respondents across 32 states were included in the analyses. Overall, findings suggest the largest barriers to clinical adoption of WAI are lack of access to equipment that measures WAI and lack of training and/or confidence in measuring or interpreting WAI.

Conclusions: Several barriers to clinical adoption of WAI were identified. However, findings also provide optimism in that audiologists utilizing WAI find it more useful than standard tympanometry, and most audiologists who do not currently use WAI are open to implementing the measure in their clinical practice. We proposed steps to address the highest priority issues and increase the clinical viability of WAI.

Purpose: Noise reduction technologies in hearing aids provide benefits under controlled conditions. However, differences in their real-life effectiveness are not established. We propose that a deep neural network (DNN)-based noise reduction system trained on naturalistic sound environments will provide different real-life benefits compared to traditional systems.

Method: Real-life listening experiences collected with Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMAs) of participants who used two premium models of hearing aid are compared. One hearing aid model (HA1) used traditional noise reduction; the other hearing aid model (HA2) used DNN-based noise reduction. Participants reported listening experiences several times a day while ambient SPL, SNR, and hearing aid volume adjustments were recorded. Forty experienced hearing aid users completed a total of 3,614 EMAs and recorded 6,812 hr of sound data across two 14-day wear periods.

Results: Linear mixed-effects analysis document that participants' assessments of ambient noisiness were positively associated with SPL and negatively associated with SNR but were not otherwise affected by hearing aid model. Likewise, mean satisfaction with the two models did not differ. However, individual satisfaction ratings for HA1 were dependent on ambient SNR, which was not the case for HA2.

Conclusions: Hearing aids with DNN-based noise reduction resulted in consistent sound satisfaction regardless of the level of background noise compared to hearing aids implementing noise reduction based on traditional statistical models. While the two hearing aid models also differed on other parameters (e.g., shape), these differences are unlikely to explain the difference in how background noise impacts sound satisfaction with the aids.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25114526.

Purpose: Uncorrected hearing loss can result in detrimental sequelae. Research addressing clinical presentation and genetic testing would inform clinical decision making.

Method: A retrospective chart review of 96 patients aged 1 month to 46 years (median age = 6 years) diagnosed with hearing loss or deafness and who underwent genetic testing at University of Rochester Medical Center from 2011 to 2021. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests examined the relationship between a diagnostic positive genetic test result and various characteristics of hearing loss, including congenital (n = 52), noncongenital (n = 34), prelingual (n = 53), postlingual (n = 33), progressive (n = 13), not progressive (n = 47), bilateral (n = 67), unilateral (n = 26), sensorineural (n = 68), conductive (n = 14), mixed (n = 5), syndromic (n = 10), and nonsyndromic (n = 87) hearing loss. We also examined the number of patients with presence of developmental disabilities (n = 35), having a first-degree relative with hearing loss (n = 19), having hearing aids or cochlear implants (n = 45), and having a multisystem presentation prior to diagnosis (n = 45).

Results: Patients with sensorineural hearing loss (44.1%) had significantly more diagnostic positive results than those with mixed (0%) or conductive hearing loss (21.4%), p = .004. However, significantly fewer patients with disabilities (19.4%) had diagnostic positive tests than those without disabilities (43.3%), p < .05. More patients with a multisystem presentation were also found to have syndromic causes of hearing loss (23.3%) than patients who did not have a multisystem presentation, p < .05.

Conclusions: Our study suggests a significant association between sensorineural type of hearing loss and a diagnostic positive genetic test result, while the presence of disabilities was significantly associated with a nondiagnostic genetic test result. Knowledge of these findings is critical for understanding the cause of the hearing loss, identifying other associated symptoms, and determining risk to family members.