Correlation between subjective and objective hearing tests after unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation

Ramakers, Geerte G. J.; Smulders, Yvette E.; Zon, Alice van; Zanten, G. A. Van; Grolman, Wilko; Stegeman, Inge

doi:10.1186/s12901-017-0043-y

Cited by 29 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Self-reported improvements in auditory ability as assessed by the SSQ-B were significant but small and the correlation between self-perceived and audiometric improvements was low. This is in general agreement with the recent literature ( 1 , 5 , 20 , 30 , 41 ). Reasons for this finding will be discussed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Moreover, a benefit version, the SSQ-B, has been developed for the assessment of self-perceived improvements following an intervention ( 21 , 22 ). At present, few studies have examined both audiometric and self-reported outcomes assessed with the SSQ for bimodal CI-users ( 5 – 8 , 23 – 30 ). These studies evidence large inter-individual variability as well as inconsistent connections between audiometry and self-report.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient Benefit Following Bimodal CI-provision: Self-reported Abilities vs. Hearing Status

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Patient-reported outcomes gain importance for the assessment of auditory abilities in cochlear implant users and for the evaluation of auditory rehabilitation. Aims of the study were to explore the interrelation of self-reported improvements in auditory ability with improvements in speech comprehension and to identify factors other than audiological improvement that affect self-reported auditory ability.Study Design: Explorative prospective analysis using a within-subjects repeated measures design.Setting: Academic tertiary care center.Participants: Twenty-seven adult participants with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who received a HiRes 90K CI and continued use of a HA at the non-implanted ear (bimodal hearing).Intervention: Cochlear implantation.Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported auditory ability/disability assessed by the comparative version of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ-B), and monosyllable as well as sentence comprehension in quiet and within speech modulated noise from different directions assessed pre- as well as 3 and 6 months post-implantation.Results: Data of 17 individuals were analyzed. At the endpoint of the study, improvement of self-reported auditory ability was significant. Regarding audiometric measures, significant improvement was seen for CI-aided pure tone thresholds, for monaural CI-assisted and bimodal sentence comprehension in quiet and in speech-modulated noise that was presented from the same source or at the side of the HA-ear. Correlations between self-reported and audiometric improvements remained weak, with the exception of the improvement seen for monaural CI-aided sentence comprehension in quiet and self-perceived improvement of sound quality. Considerable correlations existed between self-reported improvements and current level of depression and anxiety, and with general self-efficaciousness. Regression analyses substantiated a positive influence of self-efficaciousness on self-reported improvement in speech comprehension and between the improvement of monaural CI-aided sentence comprehension in quiet and perceived sound quality as well as a negative influence of anxiety on self-reported improvement in spatial hearing. Self-reported improvements were significantly better in the subgroup with intensive as compared to regular rehabilitation.Conclusions: Self-reported auditory ability/disability represents an important measure for the success of bimodal CI-provision. It is influenced by personal and mental health factors that may improve CI-rehabilitation results if addressed during rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Benefit Following Bimodal CI-provision: Self-reported Abilities vs. Hearing Status

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Humes [2003] and Humes et al [2003] showed no correlation in a similar sample as well as in a large meta-analysis. In addition, absent to low correlations between patient self-report and speech recognition have been reported in cochlear implant users [Brendel et al, 2014;McRackan et al, 2016;Ramakers et al, 2017;McRackan et al, 2018a;McRackan et al, 2018b;Moberly et al, 2018]. Together, these data support the added value of PROMs as an independent measure of patient-perceived benefit from hearing interventions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. Methods: Independent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit. Results: Significant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Hearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services.

show abstract

“…A quite different approach is to ask individuals to rate their perceived degree of communication difficulty in everyday life using a standardised questionnaire such as the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale [SSQ,6]. A study investigating correlations between subjective ratings such as collected via SSQ and objective evaluations of speech perception in noise for a cohort of adults with cochlear implants showed these correlations to be weak to moderate [7]. There are some limitations to both these approaches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subjective Evaluation of Communicative Effort for Younger and Older Adults in Interactive Tasks with Energetic and Informational Masking

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of energetic (EM) and informational masking (IM) on speech communication is typically evaluated using perception tests that do not involve actual communication. Here, ratings of effort, concentration and degree of interference were obtained for 51 young, middle-aged and older adults after they had completed communicative tasks (Diapix) with another participant in conditions in which no noise, speech-shaped noise, or three voices were heard in the background. They also completed background sensory and cognitive tests and a quality of hearing questionnaire. The EM condition was perceived as less effortful, requiring less concentration and easier to ignore than those involving IM. Effects were generally greater for talkers taking the lead in the interaction. Even though the two older groups were more affected by IM than young adults in a speech in noise perception test, age did not impact on ratings of effort and ability to ignore the noise in the diapix communicative task. Only for concentration ratings, did the Older Adult group give similar ratings in quiet as when EM was present. Together, these results suggest that evaluations that purely assess receptive speech in older adults do not fully represent the impact of sources of interference on speech communication.

show abstract

Correlation between subjective and objective hearing tests after unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation

Cited by 29 publications

References 19 publications

Patient Benefit Following Bimodal CI-provision: Self-reported Abilities vs. Hearing Status

Patient Benefit Following Bimodal CI-provision: Self-reported Abilities vs. Hearing Status

Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures

Subjective Evaluation of Communicative Effort for Younger and Older Adults in Interactive Tasks with Energetic and Informational Masking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About