A Double-blind Cross-over Study of a Non-linear Hearing Aid

Nilsson, P; Vesterager, Vibeke; Sibelle, Philip; Sieck, Lisbeth; Christensen, Birger

doi:10.3109/00206099709071983

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have been reported (e.g. Jerlvall et al, 1983;Nilsson et al, 1997;Parving et al, 1997;Arlinger et al, 1998). An official document just published by the Nordic Cooperation on Disability (NSH, 1998) and describing a procedure for such trials is based on deliberations in several groups and with representation from clinics and research departments as well as from manufacturers.…”

Section: Previous Experiencementioning

confidence: 95%

Clinical Assessment of Modern Hearing Aids

Arlinger

1998

Scandinavian Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arlinger SD. Clinical assessment of modern hearing aids. Scand Audiol 1998; 27 Suppl 49: 50-53.The increasing complexity of the non-linear signal processing of modern hearing aids makes the use of clinical assessment of hearing aid benefit more and more important. The paper discusses the general structure of such studies with regard to choice of test subjects, reference hearing aids and the advantage of double-blind and cross-over design. Assessment should contain at least the three dimensions: perceived hearing aid benefit (preferably including perceived sound quality and preference between test and reference aids), speech recognition in noise, and electroacoustic verification by means of real-ear measurements.

show abstract

Section: Previous Experiencementioning

confidence: 95%

Clinical Assessment of Modern Hearing Aids

Arlinger

1998

Scandinavian Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three of the ve studies meeting the applied criteria were double-blind by design (Parving et al, 1997a;Nilsson et al, 1997;Larson et al, 2000). The remaining two were single-blind (Biering-Sørensen et al, 1995;Bille et al, 1999).…”

Section: Hearing Aid Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Parving et al (1997a) did not relate the results to the degree of HI. Nilsson et al (1997) dichotomized the study group into HL > 40 dB and HL µ 40 dB according to their mean HL at 0.25, 1, 2 and 4 kHz, and noted that the majority of those preferring the linear ampli cation mode had a signi cantly worse mean HL. For high-frequency HI, the limit was 45 dB at the mean HL at 2 and 4 kHz, and the 20 patients preferring linear HA had signi cantly worse high-frequency hearing (Nilsson et al 1997).…”

Section: Hearing Aid Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nilsson et al (1997) dichotomized the study group into HL > 40 dB and HL µ 40 dB according to their mean HL at 0.25, 1, 2 and 4 kHz, and noted that the majority of those preferring the linear ampli cation mode had a signi cantly worse mean HL. For high-frequency HI, the limit was 45 dB at the mean HL at 2 and 4 kHz, and the 20 patients preferring linear HA had signi cantly worse high-frequency hearing (Nilsson et al 1997). All three circuits tested by Larson et al (2000) improved speech recognition and reduced the frequency of problems related to verbal communication.…”

Section: Hearing Aid Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hearing impairment among adults - extent of the problem and scientific evidence on the outcome of hearing aid rehabilitation

Brorsson²,

Davis

et al. 2001

Scandinavian Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scienti c surveys on current and estimated prevalence of hearing impairment (HI) in adult populations ( ¶ 18 years of age) in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom, and scienti c reports on the outcome of hearing aid (HA) rehabilitation worldwide were reviewed. Only a few of the studies meet strict scienti c criteria, and many locally clinically relevant studies cannot be generalized to larger populations . Population-based studies indicate an increase in prevalence of HI with age, but because of differences in study populations and available national population statistics, the studies do not allow reliable comparisons between countries or estimation of future prevalence of HI. Studies on HA prescription or outcomes do not provide uniform data in favour of non-linear ampli cation, but they do show some subject preference for the newer technology. No conclusions can be drawn regarding the degree of HI and the effects of ampli cation. The literature review alone gives only limited information regarding the extent of the problem of HI in adult populations in the target countries. Similarly, only a few studies on HA outcome meet strict scienti c criteria and even fewer studies correlate rehabilitation outcome with the degree of HI, disability or handicap.

show abstract

“…Ein weiterer Faktor ist, dass die subjektive Beurteilung bei jüngeren Kindern zudem weniger umfassend sein kann.Diese bei Erwachsenen zurzeit weiterhin vorrangige und nahezu als alleinige Beurteilungs-und Vergleichsmethode angewendete subjektive Evaluationsmethode ist v. a. bei jüngeren Kindern von deutlich geringerer Aussagekraft. Dies darf jedoch nicht dazu füh-ren, gerade diesem besonders in Bezug auf die Sprachentwicklung wichtigen Patientenkollektiv die neuen Techniken vorzuenthalten mit dem Argument, dass die konventionellen Methoden das Spektrum der volldigitalen Hörgeräte nicht erfassen können[4,14,15]. Schließ-lich besteht ein Interessenkonflikt.…”

unclassified

Digitale vs. analoge Hörgeräte bei Kindern Haben wir eine Methode, die uns einen objektiven Vergleich ermöglicht?

Prinz

Nübel

Gross

2002

HNO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until now, the assumed benefits of digital hearing aids are reflected only in subjective descriptions by patients with hearing aids, but cannot be documented adequately by routine diagnostic methods. Seventeen schoolchildren with moderate severe bilateral symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss were examined in a double-blinded crossover study. Differences in performance between a fully digital hearing aid (DigiFocus compact/Oticon) and an analogous digitally programmable two-channel hearing aid were evaluated. Of the 17 children, 13 choose the digital and 4 the analogous hearing aid. In contrast to the clear subjective preferences for the fully digital hearing aid, we could not obtain any significant results with routine diagnostic methods. Using the "virtual hearing aid," a subjective comparison and speech recognition performance task yielded significant differences. The virtual hearing aid proved to be suitable for a direct comparison of different hearing aids and can be used for double-blind testing in a pediatric population.

show abstract

A Double-blind Cross-over Study of a Non-linear Hearing Aid

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

Clinical Assessment of Modern Hearing Aids

Clinical Assessment of Modern Hearing Aids

Hearing impairment among adults - extent of the problem and scientific evidence on the outcome of hearing aid rehabilitation

Digitale vs. analoge Hörgeräte bei Kindern Haben wir eine Methode, die uns einen objektiven Vergleich ermöglicht?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About