Download PDF
Semin Hear 2018; 39(04): 364-376
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1670699
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Conventional Amplification for Children and Adults with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss

Lindsey E. Jorgensen
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota
2   Department of Veterans Affairs, Sioux Falls Healthcare System, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
,
Emily A. Benson
3   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota
,
Ryan W. McCreery
4   Boystown National Research Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 October 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The primary goal of amplification is to restore audibility without causing discomfort; for someone with severe-to-profound hearing loss, the reduced dynamic range poses unique challenges in hearing-assistive device fitting. These challenges, including physiological limitation, processing difficulties, technology constraints, and other confounding factors, must be considered when selecting, fitting, and counseling for appropriate amplification. Many of the advanced features in hearing aids do not adequately address the unique characteristics of patients with severe-to-profound hearing loss. This review article will attempt to unravel some of the challenges and associated considerations when fitting adults and children with severe-to-profound hearing loss.

Keywords

children - adults - hearing loss - amplification
 

  • References

  • 1 Hirsh IJ. Binaural hearing aids: a review of some experiments. J Speech Disord 1950; 15 (02) 114-123
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Hardy WG, Pauls MD, Bordley JE. Modern concepts of rehabilitation of young children with severe hearing impairment. Acta Otolaryngol 1951; 40 (1-2): 80-86
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Pauls MD, Hardy WG. Hearing impairment in preschool-age children. Laryngoscope 1953; 63 (06) 534-544
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Ashmore J, Avan P, Brownell WE. , et al. The remarkable cochlear amplifier. Hear Res 2010; 266 (1-2): 1-17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Moore BC, Glasberg BR. A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Aud Neurosci 1997; 3: 289-311
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Moore BC. Cochlear Hearing Loss: Physiological, Psychological and Technical Issues. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2007
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Moore BC, Glasberg BR. A revised model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Hear Res 2004; 188 (1-2): 70-88
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Plack CJ, Viemeister NF. Suppression and the dynamic range of hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 93 (02) 976-982
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Moore BC. Dead regions in the cochlea: diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and implications for the fitting of hearing aids. Trends Amplif 2001; 5 (01) 1-34
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Malicka AN, Munro KJ, Baker RJ. Diagnosing cochlear dead regions in children. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (02) 238-246
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Moore BC, Malicka AN. Cochlear dead regions in adults and children: diagnosis and clinical implications. Semin Hear 2013; 34 (01) 37-50
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Mackersie CL, Crocker TL, Davis RA. Limiting high-frequency hearing aid gain in listeners with and without suspected cochlear dead regions. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (07) 498-507
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Fitzgibbons PJ, Gordon-Salant S. Minimum stimulus levels for temporal gap resolution in listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81 (05) 1542-1545
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Madden JP, Feth LL. Temporal resolution in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners using frequency-modulated stimuli. J Speech Hear Res 1992; 35 (02) 436-442
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Tyler RS, Summerfield Q, Wood EJ, Fernandes MA. Psychoacoustic and phonetic temporal processing in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1982; 72 (03) 740-752
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Lacher-Fougère S, Demany L. Consequences of cochlear damage for the detection of interaural phase differences. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 118 (04) 2519-2526
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Lacher-Fougère S, Demany L. Modulation detection by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology 1998; 37 (02) 109-121
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Brennan M, McCreery R, Kopun J, Lewis D, Alexander J, Stelmachowicz P. Masking release in children and adults with hearing loss when using amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59 (01) 110-121
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Florentine M, Buus S, Scharf B, Zwicker E. Frequency selectivity in normally-hearing and hearing-impaired observers. J Speech Hear Res 1980; 23 (03) 646-669
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Spoendlin H. Structural basis of peripheral frequency analysis. In: Plomp R, Smoorenburg GF. , eds. Frequency Analysis and Periodicity Detection in Hearing. Driebergen, The Netherlands: Sijthoff; 1970
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Ruggero M, Rich N, Robles L, Recio A. The effects of acoustic trauma, other cochlea injury and death on basilar membrane responses to sound. In: Axelsson A, Borchgrevink H, Hamernik RP, Hellstrom PA, Henderson D, Salvi RJ. , eds. Scientific Basis of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. Stockholm; 1996: 23-35
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Turner CW, Robb MP. Audibility and recognition of stop consonants in normal and hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81 (05) 1566-1573
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Godfrey JJ, Millay K. Perception of rapid spectral change in speech by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing loss. J Am Audiol Soc 1978; 3 (05) 200-208
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Leek MR, Dorman MF, Summerfield Q. Minimum spectral contrast for vowel identification by normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81 (01) 148-154
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Turner CW, Henn CC. The relation between vowel recognition and measures of frequency resolution. J Speech Hear Res 1989; 32 (01) 49-58
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Mattys SL, Davis MH, Bradlow AR, Scott SK. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang Cogn Process 2012; 27 (7–8): 953-978
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Pisoni DB, Cleary M. Measures of working memory span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 2003; 24 (1, Suppl): 106S-120S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 AuBuchon AM, Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG. Short-term and working memory impairments in early-implanted, long-term cochlear implant users are independent of audibility and speech production. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (06) 733-737
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Beer J, Kronenberger WG, Pisoni DB. Executive function in everyday life: implications for young cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int 2011; 12 (Suppl. 01) S89-S91
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Conway CM, Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG. The importance of sound for cognitive sequencing abilities: The auditory scaffolding hypothesis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2009; 18 (05) 275-279
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Geers A, Brenner C, Davidson L. Factors associated with development of speech perception skills in children implanted by age five. Ear Hear 2003; 24 (1, Suppl): 24S-35S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Hall ML, Eigsti IM, Bortfeld H, Lillo-Martin D. Auditory access, language access, and implicit sequence learning in deaf children. Dev Sci 2018; 21 (03) e12575
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Botting N, Jones A, Marshall C, Denmark T, Atkinson J, Morgan G. Nonverbal executive function is mediated by language: a study of deaf and hearing children. Child Dev 2017; 88 (05) 1689-1700
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Blamey PJ, Sarant JZ, Paatsch LE. , et al. Relationships among speech perception, production, language, hearing loss, and age in children with impaired hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2001; 44 (02) 264-285
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Davidson LS, Skinner MW. Audibility and speech perception of children using wide dynamic range compression hearing aids. Am J Audiol 2006; 15 (02) 141-153
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Scollie SD. Children's speech recognition scores: the Speech Intelligibility Index and proficiency factors for age and hearing level. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (04) 543-556
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 McCreery RW, Walker EA, Spratford M. , et al. Speech recognition and parent ratings from auditory development questionnaires in children who are hard of hearing. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (Suppl. 01) 60S-75S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Humes LE, Garner CB, Wilson DL, Barlow NN. Hearing-aid outcome measured following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2001; 44 (03) 469-486
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Humes LE. Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 112 (3, Pt 1): 1112-1132
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 McCreery RW, Stelmachowicz PG. Audibility-based predictions of speech recognition for children and adults with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130 (06) 4070-4081
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Sherbecoe RL, Studebaker GA. Audibility-index functions for the connected speech test. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (05) 385-398
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Bagatto MP, Moodie ST, Malandrino AC, Richert FM, Clench DA, Scollie SD. The University of Western Ontario pediatric audiological monitoring protocol (UWO PedAMP). Trends Amplif 2011; 15 (01) 57-76
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Killion M, Mueller G. Twenty years later: a NEW count-the-dots method. Hear J 2010; 63 (01) 10-17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Pavlovic CV. Use of the articulation index for assessing residual auditory function in listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 75 (04) 1253-1258
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Pavlovic CV, Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 80 (01) 50-57
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Ching TY, Dillon H, Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 103 (02) 1128-1140
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Bor S, Souza P, Wright R. Multichannel compression: effects of reduced spectral contrast on vowel identification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51 (05) 1315-1327
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Turner CW, Holte LA. Discrimination of spectral-peak amplitude by normal and hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81 (02) 445-451
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Kimlinger C, McCreery R, Lewis D. High-frequency audibility: the effects of audiometric configuration, stimulus type, and device. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (02) 128-137
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (01) 40-49
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Ching TY, Johnson EE, Seeto M, Macrae JH. Hearing-aid safety: a comparison of estimated threshold shifts for gains recommended by NAL-NL2 and DSL m[i/o] prescriptions for children. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (Suppl. 02) S39-S45
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Macrae JH. Temporary and permanent threshold shift caused by hearing aid use. J Speech Hear Res 1995; 38 (04) 949-959
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Macrae JH. Prediction of asymptotic threshold shift caused by hearing aid use. J Speech Hear Res 1994; 37 (06) 1450-1458
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 McCreery R, Walker E, Spratford M, Kirby B, Oleson J, Brennan M. Stability of audiometric thresholds for children with hearing aids applying the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: Implications for safety. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (03) 252-263
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Seewald R, Tharpe AM. , eds. Comprehensive Handbook of Pediatric Audiology. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2011
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 56 Northern JL, Downs MP. Hearing in Children. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1974
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 57 Kruger B. An update on the external ear resonance in infants and young children. Ear Hear 1987; 8 (06) 333-336
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 American Academy of Pediatrics, Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics 2007; 120 (04) 898-921
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 McCreery RW, Kaminski J, Beauchaine K, Lenzen N, Simms K, Gorga MP. The impact of degree of hearing loss on auditory brainstem response predictions of behavioral thresholds. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (03) 309-319
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Incesulu A, Nadol Jr JB. Correlation of acoustic threshold measures and spiral ganglion cell survival in severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1998; 107 (11, Pt 1): 906-911
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 American Academy of Audiology. Guidelines for the audiologic management of adult hearing impairment. Audiology Today 2006;18(5)
    PubMed
  • 62 American Academy of Audiology. Pediatric amplification guidelines. 2013. Available at: https://www.audiology.org/sites/default/files/publications/PediatricAmplificationGuidelines.pdf . Accessed August 20, 2018
    PubMed
  • 63 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Guidelines for hearing aid fitting for adults. Am J Audiol 1998; 7 (01) 5-13
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Preferred practice patterns for the profession of audiology. 2006. Available at: http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/PP2006-00274.pdf . Accessed August 20, 2018
    PubMed
  • 65 Dillon H. NAL-NL1: a new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids. Hear J 1999; 52 (04) 10-14
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 66 Ricketts TA, Mueller HG. Whose NAL-NL fitting method are you using?. Hear J 2009; 62 (08) 10-14
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L. , et al. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (04) 159-197
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 68 Aazh H, Moore BCJ. The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (08) 653-664
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 69 Jorgensen LE. Verification and validation of hearing aids: opportunity not an obstacle. J Otol 2016; 11 (02) 57-62
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 70 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VIII: Reducing patient visits through verification and validation. Hear Rev 2011; 18 (06) 10-12
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 71 Abrams HB, Chisolm TH, McManus M, McArdle R. Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (10) 768-778
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 72 Chisolm TH, Noe CM, McArdle R, Abrams H. Evidence for the use of hearing assistive technology by adults: the role of the FM system. Trends Amplif 2007; 11 (02) 73-89
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 73 Sprinzl GM, Riechelmann H. Current trends in treating hearing loss in elderly people: a review of the technology and treatment options - a mini-review. Gerontology 2010; 56 (03) 351-358
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 74 Crandell CC, Smaldino JJ. Improving classroom acoustics: utilizing hearing-assistive technology and communication strategies in the educational setting. Volta Review 1999; 101 (05) 47-62
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 75 Luxford WM. ; Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Minimum speech test battery for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001; 124 (02) 125-126
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 76 Uhler K, Warner-Czyz A, Gifford R, Working Group P. Pediatric minimum speech test battery. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (03) 232-247
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 77 Yellin MW, Jerger J, Fifer RC. Norms for disproportionate loss in speech intelligibility. Ear Hear 1989; 10 (04) 231-234
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar