Objective Comparison of Benefits Derived From Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aid and Bone Conduction Device in Noisy Surroundings in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness
K. Sikka, R. Yogal, A. Thakar, Rakesh Kumar, Tanvi Chaudhary, Mao Bhartiya, H. Verma, Sonam Sharma, C. Singh
{"title":"Objective Comparison of Benefits Derived From Contralateral Routing of Signal Hearing Aid and Bone Conduction Device in Noisy Surroundings in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness","authors":"K. Sikka, R. Yogal, A. Thakar, Rakesh Kumar, Tanvi Chaudhary, Mao Bhartiya, H. Verma, Sonam Sharma, C. Singh","doi":"10.7874/jao.2021.00682","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Objectives Single-sided deafness (SSD) leads to non-participation of the diseased ear in generating adequate auditory input, which results in poor speech discrimination in noisy surroundings. The present study objectively compared the audiological benefits rendered by contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aid and bone conduction device (BCD) in patients with SSD >70 dB HL using the modified hearing in noise test (HINT). Materials and Methods Patients with SSD >70 dB HL in poor and clinically normal hearing in the better ear were enrolled. Patients aged <18 or >70 years, with a history of neurological insult or ear infection in the last 3 months, mental retardation, psychiatric or developmental disorders, and diabetes were excluded. Modified HINT was performed with the affected ear unaided, aided with CROS hearing aid, and with BCD, generating three groups. Noise signal was presented at a fixed intensity of 65 dB at the neutral position in the center and speech signal was presented to either ear sequentially. The test was repeated with the speech signal fixed at the neutral position and the noise signal presented to either ear. Results BCD led to a better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than CROS hearing aid in all situations except when noise was centralized and speech was presented to the affected ear. Conclusions A benefit was observed when auditory rehabilitation was used for the affected ear as demonstrated by better SNR scores. The results showed that BCD performed better than CROS hearing aid.","PeriodicalId":44886,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Audiology and Otology","volume":"24 1","pages":"202 - 207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Audiology and Otology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7874/jao.2021.00682","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Background and Objectives Single-sided deafness (SSD) leads to non-participation of the diseased ear in generating adequate auditory input, which results in poor speech discrimination in noisy surroundings. The present study objectively compared the audiological benefits rendered by contralateral routing of signal (CROS) hearing aid and bone conduction device (BCD) in patients with SSD >70 dB HL using the modified hearing in noise test (HINT). Materials and Methods Patients with SSD >70 dB HL in poor and clinically normal hearing in the better ear were enrolled. Patients aged <18 or >70 years, with a history of neurological insult or ear infection in the last 3 months, mental retardation, psychiatric or developmental disorders, and diabetes were excluded. Modified HINT was performed with the affected ear unaided, aided with CROS hearing aid, and with BCD, generating three groups. Noise signal was presented at a fixed intensity of 65 dB at the neutral position in the center and speech signal was presented to either ear sequentially. The test was repeated with the speech signal fixed at the neutral position and the noise signal presented to either ear. Results BCD led to a better signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than CROS hearing aid in all situations except when noise was centralized and speech was presented to the affected ear. Conclusions A benefit was observed when auditory rehabilitation was used for the affected ear as demonstrated by better SNR scores. The results showed that BCD performed better than CROS hearing aid.
背景与目的单侧耳聋(SSD)导致患病耳不参与产生足够的听觉输入,从而导致在嘈杂环境中言语辨别能力差。本研究采用改进的噪声听力测试(HINT),客观比较了对侧信号传导(CROS)助听器和骨传导装置(BCD)对SSD >70 dB HL患者的听力学益处。材料与方法选择听力较差、临床正常的较好耳SSD >70 dB HL患者。排除年龄70岁、最近3个月内有神经损伤或耳部感染史、智力低下、精神或发育障碍、糖尿病的患者。改良HINT分别在无辅助、crs助听器辅助和BCD辅助的情况下进行,分为三组。在中间中性位置以固定强度65db的噪声信号呈现,语音信号依次呈现在双耳。将语音信号固定在中性位置,将噪声信号分别呈现在任意一只耳朵上,重复测试。结果BCD助听器在除噪声集中、语音呈现于患耳外的所有情况下的信噪比均优于crs助听器。结论:通过更好的信噪比评分,观察到听觉康复对受影响耳的益处。结果表明,BCD助听器的性能优于CROS助听器。
期刊介绍:
Journal of Audiology and Otology (JAO) (formerly known as Korean Journal of Audiology) aims to publish the most advanced findings for all aspects of the auditory and vestibular system and diseases of the ear using state-of-the-art techniques and analyses. The journal covers recent trends related to the topics of audiology, otology, and neurotology conducted by professionals, with the goal of providing better possible treatment to people of all ages, from infants to the elderly, who suffer from auditory and/or vestibular disorders and thus, improving their quality of life. This journal encourages the submission of review papers about current professional issues, research papers presenting a scientific base and clinical application, and case papers with unique reports or clinical trials. We also invite letters to the editor and papers related to the manufacture and distribution of medical devices. This journal provides integrated views from otologists, audiologists, and other healthcare practitioners, offering readers high quality scientific and clinical information. This peer-reviewed and open access journal has been the official journal of the Korean Audiological Society since 1997 and of both the Korean Audiological Society and the Korean Otological Society since 2017. It is published in English four times a year in January, April, July, and October.