This research study provides evidence for the effectiveness of the ACE program and indicates that such communication programs have an important place in the audiological rehabilitation of older adults. They should be considered as an alternative or a supplement to traditional interventions such as hearing aid fitting.

The evidence suggests that individuals are more likely to seek help for hearing impairment and/or adopt hearing aids if they: (1) have a moderate to severe hearing impairment and self-reported hearing-related activity limitations or participation restrictions; (2) are older; (3) perceive their hearing as poor; (4) consider there to be more benefits than barriers to amplification; and (5) perceive their significant other/s as supportive of hearing rehabilitation. A barrier to help-seeking for hearing impairment and hearing aid adoption appears to be general practitioners' management of age-related hearing impairment.

These findings highlight the importance of addressing non-audiological factors in order to assist older adults achieve success with hearing aids.

As hearing impairment affects communication, it seems intuitive that both the person with hearing impairment and the significant other (SO) will experience effects as a result of the impairment and subsequent rehabilitation. The present study examined the effect that hearing impairment and aural rehabilitation has on the person with hearing impairment and the SO's quality of life (QOL). Ninety-three people with hearing impairment completed a measure of hearing-specific QOL (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly) and health-related QOL (Short Form-36), while 78 SOs completed a modified version of the Quantified Denver Scale and the Short Form-36, prior to and 3 months following hearing aid fitting. The results emphasize the significant impact of hearing impairment on both the person with hearing impairment and the SO. The results also demonstrate the effective role that hearing aids play in reducing such negative effects for both parties.

No abstract

The prevalence of hearing impairment (HI) in older people and its detrimental effects on their quality of life and well-being is well known. To date however, there have been few studies investigating the impact on the person's spouse. To investigate this topic, a qualitative study consisting of in-depth interviews was conducted with five female and five male spouses of older people with HI. The aims of the study were: (1) to describe the spouses' experiences of living with someone with a HI; (2) to describe the effect of HI on the couples' communication and relationship; and (3) to identify coping strategies adopted by spouses. An interpretive analysis revealed four themes that described the experience of spouses of older people with HI: (1) the broad ranging effects of the HI on the spouses' everyday lives; (2) the spouses' need to constantly adapt to their partners' HI; (3) the effect of acceptance of the HI on the spouse; and (4) the impact of ageing and retirement. Spouses in this study experienced a wide range of effects as a result of their partners' HI. Implications for audiological rehabilitation are discussed.

All hearing-impaired people will have a spatial processing deficit of some degree. This should be given due consideration when counseling patients in regard to realistic expectations of how they will perform in background noise. Further research is required into potential remediation for spatial-processing deficits and the cause of these deficits.

Objective: To investigate the music perception skills of adult cochlear implant (CI) users in comparison with hearing aid (HA) users who have similar levels of hearing impairment. It was hypothesized that the HA users would perform better than the CI recipients on tests involving pitch, instrument, and melody perception, but similarly for rhythm perception.Design: Fifteen users of the Nucleus CI system and 15 HA users participated in a series of music perception tests. All subjects were postlingually deafened adults, with the HA subjects being required to meet the current audiological criteria for CI candidacy. A music test battery was designed for the study incorporating four major tasks: (1) discrimination of 38 pairs of rhythms; (2) pitch ranking of one-octave, half-octave, and quarter-octave intervals; (3) instrument recognition incorporating three subtests, each with 12 different instruments or ensembles; and (4) recognition of 10 familiar melodies. Stimuli were presented via direct audio input at comfortable presentation levels. The test battery was administered to each subject on two separate occasions, approximately 4 mo apart. Results:The results from the rhythm test were 93% correct for the CI group and 94% correct for the HA group; these scores were not significantly different. For the pitch test, there was a significant difference between the HA group and the CI group (p < 0.001), with higher mean scores recorded by the HA group for all three interval sizes. The CI subject group was unable to rank pitches a quarter-octave apart, only scoring at chance level for this interval size. In the instrument recognition test, although there was no significant difference between the mean scores of the two groups, both groups obtained significantly higher scores for the subtest incorporating single instrument stimuli than those incorporating multiple instrumentations (p < 0.001). In the melody test, there was a significant difference between the implantees' mean score of 52% correct and the HA group's mean of 91% (p < 0.001). Conclusions:As hypothesized, results from the two groups were almost identical for the rhythm test, with the HA group performing significantly better than the CI group on the pitch and melody tests. However, there was no difference between the groups in their ability to identify musical instruments or ensembles. The results of this study indicate that HA users with similar levels of hearing loss perform at least equal to, if not better than, CI users on these music perception tests. However, despite the differences between scores obtained by the CI and HA subject groups, both these subject groups were largely unable to achieve accurate or effective music perception, regardless of the device they used.