Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(08): 764-779
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17050
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Characteristics of Adults with Severe Hearing Loss

Pamela Souza
*   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders and Knowles Hearing Center, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
,
Eric Hoover
†   Auditory & Speech Sciences Laboratory, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
,
Michael Blackburn
‡   Veterans Administration Medical Center, St. Cloud, MN
,
Frederick Gallun
§   National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, Portland VA Medical Center and Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Severe hearing loss impairs communication in a wide range of listening environments. However, we lack data as to the specific objective and subjective abilities of listeners with severe hearing loss. Insight into those abilities may inform treatment choices.

Purpose:

The primary goal was to describe the audiometric profiles, spectral resolution ability, and objective and subjective speech perception of a sample of adult listeners with severe hearing loss, and to consider the relationships among those measures. We also considered the typical fitting received by individuals with severe loss, in terms of hearing aid style, electroacoustic characteristics, and features, as well as supplementary device use.

Research Design:

A within-subjects design was used.

Study Sample:

Participants included 36 adults aged 54–93 yr with unilateral or bilateral severe hearing loss.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Testing included a full hearing and hearing aid history; audiometric evaluation; loudness growth and dynamic range; spectral resolution; assessment of cochlear dead regions; objective and subjective assessment of speech recognition; and electroacoustic evaluation of current hearing aids. Regression models were used to analyze relationships between hearing loss, spectral resolution, and speech recognition.

Results:

For speech in quiet, 60% of the variance was approximately equally accounted for by amount of hearing loss, spectral resolution, and number of dead regions. For speech in noise, only a modest proportion of performance variance was explained by amount of hearing loss. In general, participants were wearing amplification of appropriate style and technology for their hearing loss, but the extent of assistive technology use was low. Subjective communication ratings depended on the listening situation, but in general, were similar to previously published data for adults with mild-to-moderate loss who did not wear hearing aids.

Conclusions:

The present data suggest that the range of abilities of an individual can be more fully captured with comprehensive testing. Such testing also offers an opportunity for informed counseling regarding realistic expectations for hearing aid use and the availability of hearing assistive technology.

Key Words

auditory rehabilitation - hearing science - speech perception

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01 DC006014).


A portion of these data were presented at the 2014 meeting of the American Auditory Society, Scottsdale, AZ.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • Ahadi M, Milani M, Malayeri S. 2015; Prevalence of cochlear dead regions in moderate to severe sensorineural hearing impaired children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 79 (08) 1362-1365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Akeroyd MA, Guy FH, Harrison DL, Suller SL. 2014; A factor analysis of the SSQ (speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale). Int J Audiol 53 (02) 101-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Audioscan. 2016. Audioscan Verifit User’s Guide 3.16. Dorchester, ON, Canada: Audioscan;
    Google Scholar
  • Bernstein JG, Mehraei G, Shamma S, Gallun FJ, Theodoroff SM, Leek MR. 2013; Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity as a predictor of speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (04) 293-306
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Boothroyd A, Springer N, Smith L, Schulman J. 1988; Amplitude compression and profound hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 31 (03) 362-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Byrne D, Dillon H, Ching T, Katsch R, Keidser G. 2001; NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol 12 (01) 37-51
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2011; Severe hearing impairment among military veterans--United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 60 (28) 955-958
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cheatham MA, Dallos P. 2000; The dynamic range of inner hair cell and organ of Corti responses. J Acoust Soc Am 107 (03) 1508-1520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ching TY, Dillon H. 2013; A brief overview of factors affecting speech intelligibility of people with hearing loss: implications for amplification. Am J Audiol 22 (02) 306-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ching TY, Dillon H, Lockhart F, van Wanrooy E, Flax M. 2011. Audibility and speech intelligibility revisited: implications for amplification. In: Dau T, Jepsen ML, Poulsen T. Speech Perception and Auditory Disorders: 3rd International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research. Denmark: The Danavox Jubilee Foundation; 11-19
    Google Scholar
  • Cole B. 2009. Verifit & RM500SL Test Signals & Analysis Audionote 2. Windsor, ON: Etymonic Design Incorporated;
    Google Scholar
  • Convery E, Keidser G. 2011; Transitioning hearing aid users with severe and profound loss to a new gain/frequency response: benefit, perception, and acceptance. J Am Acad Audiol 22 (03) 168-180
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Johnson J, Rivera I. 2011; Cochlear dead regions in typical hearing aid candidates: prevalence and implications for use of high-frequency speech cues. Ear Hear 32 (03) 339-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Taylor IM, Gray GA. 1997; The contour test of loudness perception. Ear Hear 18 (05) 388-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cox RM, Johnson JA, Alexander GC. 2012; Implications of high-frequency cochlear dead regions for fitting hearing aids to adults with mild to moderately severe hearing loss. Ear Hear 33 (05) 573-587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Tweed TS, Klein BE, Klein R, Mares-Perlman JA, Nondahl DM. 1998; Prevalence of hearing loss in older adults in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. The Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study. Am J Epidemiol 148 (09) 879-886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Davies-Venn E, Nelson P, Souza P. 2015; Comparing auditory filter bandwidths, spectral ripple modulation detection, spectral ripple discrimination, and speech recognition: normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 138 (01) 492-503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Davies-Venn E, Souza P. 2014; The role of spectral resolution, working memory, and audibility in explaining variance in susceptibility to temporal envelope distortion. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (06) 592-604
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Davies-Venn E, Souza P, Brennan M, Stecker GC. 2009; Effects of audibility and multichannel wide dynamic range compression on consonant recognition for listeners with severe hearing loss. Ear Hear 30 (05) 494-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dillon H. 1988. Compression in hearing aids. In: Sandlin R. Handbook of Hearing Aid Amplification Volume I: Theoretical and Technical Considerations. New York: College-Hill Press;
    Google Scholar
  • Drennan WR, Anderson ES, Won JH, Rubinstein JT. 2014; Validation of a clinical assessment of spectral-ripple resolution for cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 35 (03) e92-e98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Elhilali M, Chi T, Shamma S. 2003; A spectro-termporal modulation index (STMI) for assessment of speec intelligibility. Speech Commun 41: 331-348
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Field A. 2013. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.;
    Google Scholar
  • Flynn MC, Dowell RC, Clark GM. 1998; Aided speech recognition abilities of adults with a severe or severe-to-profound hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41 (02) 285-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gatehouse S, Noble W. 2004; The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 43 (02) 85-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gevonden MJ, Myin-Germeys I, van den Brink W, van Os J, Selten JP, Booij J. 2015; Psychotic reactions to daily life stress and dopamine function in people with severe hearing impairment. Psychol Med 45 (08) 1665-1674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Glick H, Sharma A. 2017; Cross-modal plasticity in developmental and age-related hearing loss: clinical implications. Hear Res 343: 191-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hair JFJ, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall;
    Google Scholar
  • Hamernik RP, Patterson JH, Turrentine GA, Ahroon WA. 1989; The quantitative relation between sensory cell loss and hearing thresholds. Hear Res 38 (03) 199-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hawkins DB, Walden BE, Montgomery A, Prosek RA. 1987; Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. Ear Hear 8 (03) 162-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hedrick M, Younger MS. 2001; Perceptual weighting of relative amplitude and formant transition cues in aided CV syllables. J Speech Lang Hear Res 44 (05) 964-974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Henry BA, Turner CW, Behrens A. 2005; Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 118 (02) 1111-1121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Humes LE. 2007; The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (07) 590-603
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Keidser G, Dillon H, Dyrlund O, Carter L, Hartley D. 2007; Preferred low- and high-frequency compression ratios among hearing aid users with moderately severe to profound hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (01) 17-33
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. 2004; Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 116 4 Pt 1 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kochkin S. 2009; MarkeTrak VIII: 25-year trends in the hearing health market. Hear Rev 16: 12-31
    Google Scholar
  • Kochkin S. 2011; MarkeTrak VIII: mini-BTEs tap new market, users more satisfied. Hear J 64: 17-24
    Google Scholar
  • Kühnel V, Margolf-Hackl S, Kiessling J. 2001; Multi-microphone technology for severe-to-profound hearing loss. Scand Audiol Suppl 30 (52) 65-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lyxell B, Andersson U, Borg E, Ohlsson I-S. 2003; Working-memory capacity and phonological processing in deafened adults and individuals with a severe hearing impairment. Int J Audiol 42 (Suppl 1) S86-S89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mackersie CL, Crocker TL, Davis RA. 2004; Limiting high-frequency hearing aid gain in listeners with and without suspected cochlear dead regions. J Am Acad Audiol 15 (07) 498-507
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mathworks 2014. MATLAB. Natick, MA:
    Google Scholar
  • McArdle RA, Wilson RH. 2006; Homogeneity of the 18 QuickSIN lists. J Am Acad Audiol 17 (03) 157-167
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mehraei G, Gallun FJ, Leek MR, Bernstein JG. 2014; Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity for hearing-impaired listeners: dependence on carrier center frequency and the relationship to speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 136 (01) 301-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moodie S, Scollie S, Seewald R, Bagatto M, Beaulac S. 2007. The DSL method for pediatric and adult hearing instrument fitting: Version 5 Phonak Focus. 37 Stäfa, Switzerland: Phonak AG;
    Google Scholar
  • Moore BC. 2004; Dead regions in the cochlea: conceptual foundations, diagnosis, and clinical applications. Ear Hear 25 (02) 98-116
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moore BC. 2010; Testing for cochlear dead regions: audiometer implementation of the TEN(HL) test. Hear Rev 17: 10-16
    Google Scholar
  • Moore BC, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. 2004; New version of the TEN test with calibrations in dB HL. Ear Hear 25 (05) 478-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moore BC, Killen T, Munro KJ. 2003; Application of the TEN test to hearing-impaired teenagers with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Int J Audiol 42 (08) 465-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Noble W, Gatehouse S. 2006; Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 45 (03) 172-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Preminger JE, Carpenter R, Ziegler CH. 2005; A clinical perspective on cochlear dead regions: intelligibility of speech and subjective hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (08) 600-613 . quiz 631–632
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ryan A, Dallos P. 1975; Effect of absence of cochlear outer hair cells on behavioural auditory threshold. Nature 253 5486 44-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Seldran F, Gallego S, Micheyl C, Veuillet E, Truy E, Thai-Van H. 2011; Relationship between age of hearing-loss onset, hearing-loss duration, and speech recognition in individuals with severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 12 (04) 519-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shamma S. 2001; On the role of space and time in auditory processing. Trends Cogn Sci 5 (08) 340-348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shamma SA. 1988; The acoustic features of speech sounds in a model of auditory processing: vowels and voiceless fricatives. J Phonetics 16: 77-91
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Singh G, Pichora-Fuller MK. 2010; Older adults performance on the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ): test-retest reliability and a comparison of interview and self-administration methods. Int J Audiol 49 (10) 733-740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Souza PE, Bishop RD. 1999; Improving speech audibility with wide dynamic range compression in listeners with severe sensorineural loss. Ear Hear 20 (06) 461-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Souza PE, Boike KT, Witherell K, Tremblay K. 2007; Prediction of speech recognition from audibility in older listeners with hearing loss: effects of age, amplification, and background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (01) 54-65
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stansell MM, Papesh MA, Srinivasan NK, Kampel SD, Belding HM, Jakien KM, Gallun FJ. 2015 The SSQ as a predictor of spatial release from masking. Paper presented at the American Auditory Society, Scottsdale, AZ
    PubMed
  • Stebbins WC, Hawkins Jr JE, Johnson LG, Moody DB. 1979; Hearing thresholds with outer and inner hair cell loss. Am J Otolaryngol 1 (01) 15-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Studebaker GA. 1985; A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28 (03) 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tillman TW, Carhart R. 1966. An Expanded Test for Speech Discrimination Utilizing CNC Monosyllabic Words: Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine;
    Google Scholar
  • Turner CW, Souza PE, Forget LN. 1995; Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 97 (04) 2568-2576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Turton L, Smith P. 2013; Prevalence & characteristics of severe and profound hearing loss in adults in a UK National Health Service clinic. Int J Audiol 52 (02) 92-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Van Tasell DJ. 1993; Hearing loss, speech, and hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res 36 (02) 228-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wolfe J, Duke MM, Schafer E, Jones C, Mülder HE, John A, Hudson M. 2015; Evaluation of performance with an adaptive digital remote microphone system and a digital remote microphone audio-streaming accessory system. Am J Audiol 24 (03) 440-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Won J-H, Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT. 2007; Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8 (03) 384-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Won JH, Jones GL, Moon IJ, Rubinstein JT. 2015; Spectral and temporal analysis of simulated dead regions in cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 16 (02) 285-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zeng FG, Grant G, Niparko J, Galvin J, Shannon R, Opie J, Segel P. 2002; Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. J Acoust Soc Am 111 1 Pt 1 377-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar