ObjectivesThe objective of this work is to examine the outcomes of a set of objective measures for evaluating individuals with minor traumatic brain injury (mTBI) over the sub‐acute time period. These methods involve tests of oculomotor, vestibular, and reaction time functions. This work expands upon published work examining these test results at the time of presentation.Study DesignThis study is a prospective age‐ and sex‐matched controlled study.Materials and MethodsThe subject group was composed of 106 individuals with mTBI and 300 age‐ and sex‐matched controls without a history of mTBI. All individuals agreeing to participate in the study underwent a battery of oculomotor, vestibular, and reaction time tests (OVRT). Those subjects with mTBI underwent these tests at presentation (within 6 days of injury) and 1 and 2weeks post injury. These outcomes were compared to each other over time as well as to results from the controls that underwent 1 test session.ResultsSix measures from 5 tests can classify the control and mTBI during Session 1 with a true positive rate (sensitivity) of 84.9% and true negative rate (specificity) of 97.0%. Patterns of abnormalities changed over time in the mTBI group and overall normalized in a subset of individuals at the third (final) testing session.ConclusionsWe describe an objective and effective second generation testing algorithm for diagnosing and following the prognosis of mTBI/concussion. This testing paradigm will allow investigators to institute better treatments and provide more accurate return to activity advice.Level of Evidence3

ObjectiveMild traumatic brain injury is a major public health issue and is a particular concern in sports. One of the most difficult issues with respect to mild traumatic brain injury involves the diagnosis of the disorder. Typically, diagnosis is made by a constellation of physical exam findings. However, in order to best manage mild traumatic brain injury, it is critically important to develop objective tests that substantiate the diagnosis. With objective tests the disorder can be better characterized, more accurately diagnosed, and studied more effectively. In addition, prevention and treatments can be applied where necessary.MethodsTwo cohorts each of fifty subjects with mild traumatic brain injury and one hundred controls were evaluated with a battery of oculomotor, vestibular and reaction time related tests applied to a population of individuals with mild traumatic brain injury as compared to controls.ResultsWe demonstrated pattern differences between the two groups and showed how three of these tests yield an 89% sensitivity and 95% specificity for confirming a current diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury.InterpretationThese results help better characterize the oculomotor, vestibular, and reaction time differences between those the mild traumatic brain injury and non-affected individuals. This characterization will allow for the development of more effective point of care neurologic diagnostic techniques and allow for more targeted treatment which may allow for quicker return to normal activity.

Objective To compare the benefit of wireless contralateral routing of signal (CROS) technology to bone-anchored implant (BAI) technology in monaural listeners. Study Design Prospective, single-subject Setting Tertiary academic referral center Patients Adult English speaking subjects using either a CROS hearing aid or BAI as treatment for unilateral severe-profound hearing loss. Interventions Aided performance utilizing the subjects BAI or CROS hearing device. Main Outcome Measures Outcome measures included speech-in-noise perception using the QuickSIN™ speech-in-noise test and localization ability using narrow and broadband stimuli. Performance was measured in the unaided and aided condition and compared to normal hearing controls. Subjective outcomes measures included the Speech Spatial and Qualities hearing scale and the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile. Results A significant improvement in speech-in-noise performance for monaural listeners (p<0.0001) was observed, but there was no improvement in localization ability of either CROS or BAI users. There was no significant difference between CROS and BAI subject groups for either outcome measure. BAI recipients demonstrate higher initial disability and handicap over CROS hearing aid users. No significant difference was observed between treatment groups for subjective measures of post-treatment residual disability or satisfaction. Conclusions Our data demonstrate that both CROS and BAI systems provide significant benefit for monaural listeners. There is no significant difference between CROS or BAI systems for objective measures of speech-in-noise performance. CROS and BAI hearing devices do not provide any localization benefit in the horizontal plane for monaural listeners and there is no significant difference between systems.

IMPORTANCE Currently, no clear guidelines exist regarding clinical testing methods for identifying adult cochlear implant (CI) candidates. Indications provided by the US Food and Drug Administration, Medicare, and private insurers are ambiguous concerning test materials and the level and mode of test presentation. This could lead to wide variability in clinical assessment and, potentially, unequal access to CIs for individuals with clinically significant hearing loss. OBJECTIVE To examine the preoperative testing methods used by audiologists in evaluating adult CI candidates across the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A survey assessing audiology practice patterns was created using a Research Electronic Data Capture system hosted at the University of Miami. A link to a survey (65 questions in multiple-choice or rank-order format was distributed electronically along with a request for completion to members of the American Cochlear Implant Alliance and to the Institute for Cochlear Implant Training forum. Responses were collected from January 17 to June 4, 2018. Participation was limited to audiologists who evaluate adult CI candidates, and respondents who do not provide adult CI care were excluded. Collected demographic information included work setting, years of experience, and highest level of education attained. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Percentages, medians, and interquartile ranges were from aggregated responses concerning hearing aid verification methods; testing methods, materials, and practices; nonauditory factors that might affect CI candidacy; audiology practice patterns; and expanded indications for CIs. RESULTS Anonymized surveys were returned by 99 respondents; because surveys were available electronically, the number of audiologists who viewed the survey but did not respond was not available. Seven respondents identified themselves as pediatric specialists and were excluded, resulting in a total of 92 surveys available for analysis (denominators vary because respondents could complete the survey without answering all questions). Seventy percent of respondents (51 of 72) were doctors of audiology, and nearly 50% (33 of 74) were employed at universities and academic centers performing more than 50 CIs per year. When assessing adult candidacy for implant, most respondents reported using test materials from the Minimum Speech Test Battery: 96% (51 of 53), using AzBio sentences in quiet; 89% (47 of 53), AzBio sentences in noise; and 100% (53 of 53), the consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant, monosyllabic words test. However, these tests were applied inconsistently, with 39 of 53 respondents (74%) reporting use of a sound pressure level scale and the other 14 (26%) a hearing level scale at various decibel levels, and with some using a single signal-to-noise ratio and others using multiple ratios for sound-in-noise tests. Respondents' definitions of the best aided listening condition for assessing implant candidates also varied widely. Among the nonauditory factors ranked most important for as...

Background In the Autumn of 2016, diplomatic personnel residing in Havana began to present with symptoms of dizziness, ear pain, and tinnitus that emerged after perception of high frequency noise and/or a pressure sensation. Understanding the acute symptoms of this disorder is important for better defining the disorder and developing optimal diagnostic, preventive, and treatment algorithms. Objectives To define the presenting symptoms in a cohort of patients in the acute time period after perceiving a noise/pressure exposure in Havana. Design/Settings/Participants Review of 25 symptomatic individuals who reported a localized sensation of noise/pressure and 10 asymptomatic individuals (roommates of those affected) who did not experience the sound/pressure. Results Immediately after the exposure, the majority of individuals reported intense ear pain in one or both ears and experienced tinnitus. All of the individuals noticed unsteadiness and features of cognitive impairment. On presentation to our center, dizziness (92%) and cognitive complaints (56%) were the most common symptoms. Formal testing revealed that 100% of individuals had an otolithic abnormality and evidence of cognitive dysfunction. Conclusion and Relevance This study focuses on the acute presentation of a phenomenon in which symptoms emerge after perception of a localized noise/pressure and in which the acute symptomology includes the universal nature of vestibular injuries and select cognitive deficits. The findings presented in this acute group of patients begin to provide a better picture of the initial injury pattern seen after this exposure and may allow for more accurate diagnosis of this disorder in future cases. Level of Evidence Retrospective review

Objective To compare the effectiveness of current contralateral routing of signal technology (CROS) to bone-anchored implants in experienced bone anchored implant users with unilateral severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss. Design Prospective, within-subject repeated-measures comparison study Setting Tertiary referral center Patients Adult, English speaking patients (n=12) with severe-profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss implanted with a bone-anchored implant for the indication of single-sided deafness. Intervention Subjects were fitted with contralateral routing of signal amplification and tested for speech in noise performance and localization error. Outcome measures Speech perception in noise was assessed using the BKB-SIN™ test materials. Localization was assessed using narrow band noises centered at 500 and 4000 Hz, as well as a broadband speech stimulus presented at random to the front hemifield by 19 speakers spatially separated by 10 degrees. Results There was no improvement in localization ability in the aided condition and no significant difference in performance with CROS versus BAI. There was a significant improvement in speech in noise performance for monaural listeners in the aided condition for speech poorer ear/noise better ear, speech front/noise front, and speech front/noise back. No significant difference was observed on performance with CROS versus BAI subjects. Conclusions Contrary to earlier studies suggesting improved performance of BAIs over CROS, the current study found no difference in performance in BAI over CROS devices. Both CROS and BAI provide significant benefit for monaural listeners. The results suggest that non-invasive CROS solutions can successfully rehabilitate certain monaural listening deficits, provide improved hearing outcomes and expand the reach of treatment in this population.

There is an increasing global recognition of the negative impact of hearing loss, and its association to many chronic health conditions. The deficits and disabilities associated with profound unilateral hearing loss, however, continue to be under-recognized and lack public awareness. Profound unilateral hearing loss significantly impairs spatial hearing abilities, which is reliant on the complex interaction of monaural and binaural hearing cues. Unilaterally deafened listeners lose access to critical binaural hearing cues. Consequently, this leads to a reduced ability to understand speech in competing noise and to localize sounds. The functional deficits of profound unilateral hearing loss have a substantial impact on socialization, learning and work productivity. In recognition of this, rehabilitative solutions such as the rerouting of signal and hearing implants are on the rise. This review focuses on the latest insights into the deficits of profound unilateral hearing impairment, and current treatment approaches.

In recent years, an increasing research effort has been directed toward remediation of single-sided deafness. Contralateral routing of signal (CROS) is the longest standing rehabilitation solution for individuals with single-sided deafness. The primary goal of CROS technology is to transfer the signal received at the deaf ear to the better hearing ear, thereby reducing the impact of the acoustic head-shadow. This allows for individuals with single-sided deafness to regain access to sounds located at the deaf ear. The hearing deficits associated with single-sided deafness are often debilitating. While surgical management of single-sided deafness is on the rise, CROS hearing aids offer a nonsurgical option to compensate for some of the deficits that occur when a listener is limited to a single ear. Limitations of early CROS devices resulted in poor adoption and acceptance in those with single-sided deafness. Following significant advances in both design and technology, the acceptance of CROS devices has increased in recent years. This paper reviews relevant literature in CROS application for the management of single-sided deafness. Technological advances, benefits, limitations, and clinical considerations are also reviewed in this article.