Download PDF
Semin Hear 2018; 39(04): 349-363
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1670698
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Physiologic and Psychophysical Consequences of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss

Pamela Souza
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
,
Eric Hoover
2   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 October 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Substantial loss of cochlear function is required to elevate pure-tone thresholds to the severe hearing loss range; yet, individuals with severe or profound hearing loss continue to rely on hearing for communication. Despite the impairment, sufficient information is encoded at the periphery to make acoustic hearing a viable option. However, the probability of significant cochlear and/or neural damage associated with the loss has consequences for sound perception and speech recognition. These consequences include degraded frequency selectivity, which can be assessed with tests including psychoacoustic tuning curves and broadband rippled stimuli. Because speech recognition depends on the ability to resolve frequency detail, a listener with severe hearing loss is likely to have impaired communication in both quiet and noisy environments. However, the extent of the impairment varies widely among individuals. A better understanding of the fundamental abilities of listeners with severe and profound hearing loss and the consequences of those abilities for communication can support directed treatment options in this population.

Keywords

hearing loss - frequency resolution - temporal resolution - dead region - speech recognition
 

  • References

  • 1 Van Tasell DJ. Hearing loss, speech, and hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36 (02) 228-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Flynn MC, Dowell RC, Clark GM. Aided speech recognition abilities of adults with a severe or severe-to-profound hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998; 41 (02) 285-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Souza P, Hoover E, Blackburn M, Gallun FJ. The characteristics of adults with severe hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (08) 764-779
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 World Health Organization. Grades of hearing impairment. 2018; Available at: http://www.who.int/pbd/deafness/hearing_impairment_grades/en/ . Accessed August 20, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Atcherson SR, Mendel LL, Baltimore WJ. , et al. The effect of conventional and transparent surgical masks on speech understanding in individuals with and without hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (01) 58-67
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lyxell B, Andersson U, Borg E, Ohlsson I-S. Working-memory capacity and phonological processing in deafened adults and individuals with a severe hearing impairment. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (Suppl. 01) S86-S89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Tweed TS. , et al; The Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study. Prevalence of hearing loss in older adults in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. Am J Epidemiol 1998; 148 (09) 879-886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Margolis RH, Saly GL. Distribution of hearing loss characteristics in a clinical population. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (04) 524-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VIII: 25-year trends in the hearing health market. Hearing Review 2009; 16: 12-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Severe hearing impairment among military veterans–United States, 2010. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report 2011; 2011 (60) 955-958
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mohr PE, Feldman JJ, Dunbar JL. , et al. The societal costs of severe to profound hearing loss in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16 (04) 1120-1135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Thompson DC, McPhillips H, Davis RL, Lieu TL, Homer CJ, Helfand M. Universal newborn hearing screening: summary of evidence. JAMA 2001; 286 (16) 2000-2010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Williams TR, Alam S, Gaffney M. ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Progress in identifying infants with hearing loss—United States, 2006-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015; 64 (13) 351-356
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Uus K, Bamford J. Effectiveness of population-based newborn hearing screening in England: ages of interventions and profile of cases. Pediatrics 2006; 117 (05) e887-e893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Prieve BA, Gorga MP, Neely ST. Otoacoustic emissions in an adult with severe hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34 (02) 379-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Psarommatis IM, Tsakanikos MD, Kontorgianni AD, Ntouniadakis DE, Apostolopoulos NK. Profound hearing loss and presence of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in the neonate: a report of two cases. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1997; 39 (03) 237-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lopez-Poveda EA, Johannesen PT. Behavioral estimates of the contribution of inner and outer hair cell dysfunction to individualized audiometric loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2012; 13 (04) 485-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nelson EG, Hinojosa R. Presbycusis: a human temporal bone study of individuals with downward sloping audiometric patterns of hearing loss and review of the literature. Laryngoscope 2006; 116 (9, Pt 3; Suppl 112): 1-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hinojosa R, Marion M. Histopathology of profound sensorineural deafness. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1983; 405: 459-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Santos F, Nadol JB. Temporal bone histopathology of furosemide ototoxicity. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2017; 2 (05) 204-207
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nadol Jr JB. Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 117 (3, Pt 1): 220-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schmidt JM. Cochlear neuronal populations in developmental defects of the inner ear. Implications for cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 1985; 99 (1-2): 14-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Stebbins WC, Hawkins Jr JE, Johnson LG, Moody DB. Hearing thresholds with outer and inner hair cell loss. Am J Otolaryngol 1979; 1 (01) 15-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hamernik RP, Patterson JH, Turrentine GA, Ahroon WA. The quantitative relation between sensory cell loss and hearing thresholds. Hear Res 1989; 38 (03) 199-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Cheatham MA, Dallos P. The dynamic range of inner hair cell and organ of Corti responses. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107 (03) 1508-1520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ryan A, Dallos P. Effect of absence of cochlear outer hair cells on behavioural auditory threshold. Nature 1975; 253 (5486): 44-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci 2009; 29 (45) 14077-14085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Xu S-A, Shepherd RK, Chen Y, Clark GM. Profound hearing loss in the cat following the single co-administration of kanamycin and ethacrynic acid. Hear Res 1993; 70 (02) 205-215
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Moore BC, Huss M, Vickers DA, Glasberg BR, Alcántara JI. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol 2000; 34 (04) 205-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Vinay, Moore BC. Prevalence of dead regions in subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (02) 231-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Moore BC, Killen T, Munro KJ. Application of the TEN test to hearing-impaired teenagers with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (08) 465-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Preminger JE, Carpenter R, Ziegler CH. A clinical perspective on cochlear dead regions: intelligibility of speech and subjective hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (08) 600-613 , quiz 631–632
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ahadi M, Milani M, Malayeri S. Prevalence of cochlear dead regions in moderate to severe sensorineural hearing impaired children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 79 (08) 1362-1365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Huss M, Moore BC. Dead regions and pitch perception. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 117 (06) 3841-3852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Won JH, Jones GL, Moon IJ, Rubinstein JT. Spectral and temporal analysis of simulated dead regions in cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2015; 16 (02) 285-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Vinay BT, Baer T, Moore BC. Speech recognition in noise as a function of highpass-filter cutoff frequency for people with and without low-frequency cochlear dead regions. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123 (02) 606-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Glasberg BR, Moore BC, Patterson RD, Nimmo-Smith I. Dynamic range and asymmetry of the auditory filter. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76 (02) 419-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Tyler RS, Hall JW, Glasberg BR, Moore BC, Patterson RD. Auditory filter asymmetry in the hearing impaired. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76 (05) 1363-1368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Glasberg BR, Moore BC. Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 79 (04) 1020-1033
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Laroche C, Hétu R, Quoc HT, Josserand B, Glasberg B. Frequency selectivity in workers with noise-induced hearing loss. Hear Res 1992; 64 (01) 61-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Zwicker E, Schorn K. Psychoacoustical tuning curves in audiology. Audiology 1978; 17 (02) 120-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Festen JM, Plomp R. Relations between auditory functions in impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 73 (02) 652-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Ellison DE. Stop-consonant recognition for normal-hearing listeners and listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. I: The contribution of selected frequency regions. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 85 (01) 347-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Faulkner A, Rosen S, Moore BC. Residual frequency selectivity in the profoundly hearing-impaired listener. Br J Audiol 1990; 24 (06) 381-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Rosen S, Faulkner A, Smith DA. The psychoacoustics of profound hearing impairment. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1990; 469: 16-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Won J-H, Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT. Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2007; 8 (03) 384-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Won JH, Clinard CG, Kwon S. , et al. Relationship between behavioral and physiological spectral-ripple discrimination. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2011; 12 (03) 375-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Henry BA, Turner CW, Behrens A. Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 118 (02) 1111-1121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Eddins DA, Bero EM. Spectral modulation detection as a function of modulation frequency, carrier bandwidth, and carrier frequency region. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121 (01) 363-372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Davies-Venn E, Nelson P, Souza P. Comparing auditory filter bandwidths, spectral ripple modulation detection, spectral ripple discrimination, and speech recognition: Normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2015; 138 (01) 492-503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Davies-Venn E, Souza P. The role of spectral resolution, working memory, and audibility in explaining variance in susceptibility to temporal envelope distortion. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25 (06) 592-604
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Litvak LM, Spahr AJ, Saoji AA, Fridman GY. Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 122 (02) 982-991
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Saoji AA, Litvak L, Spahr AJ, Eddins DA. Spectral modulation detection and vowel and consonant identifications in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2009; 126 (03) 955-958
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. Aging affects neural precision of speech encoding. J Neurosci 2012; 32 (41) 14156-14164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Mehraei G, Gallun FJ, Leek MR, Bernstein JG. Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity for hearing-impaired listeners: dependence on carrier center frequency and the relationship to speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 136 (01) 301-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Bernstein JG, Mehraei G, Shamma S, Gallun FJ, Theodoroff SM, Leek MR. Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity as a predictor of speech intelligibility for hearing-impaired listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (04) 293-306
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Gifford RH, Hedley-Williams A, Spahr AJ. Clinical assessment of spectral modulation detection for adult cochlear implant recipients: a non-language based measure of performance outcomes. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (03) 159-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, Yi HG, Kraus N. A neural basis of speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (06) 750-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Taylor IM, Gray GA. The contour test of loudness perception. Ear Hear 1997; 18 (05) 388-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Thornton AR, Abbas PJ, Abbas PJ. Low-frequency hearing loss: perception of filtered speech, psychophysical tuning curves, and masking. J Acoust Soc Am 1980; 67 (02) 638-643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Kluk K, Moore BC. Factors affecting psychophysical tuning curves for hearing-impaired subjects with high-frequency dead regions. Hear Res 2005; 200 (1-2): 115-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Stone MA, Glasberg BR, Moore BC. Simplified measurement of auditory filter shapes using the notched-noise method. Br J Audiol 1992; 26 (06) 329-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Patterson RD, Nimmo-Smith I, Weber DL, Milroy R. The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 1982; 72 (06) 1788-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Sek A, Alcántara J, Moore BC, Kluk K, Wicher A. Development of a fast method for determining psychophysical tuning curves. Int J Audiol 2005; 44 (07) 408-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Sęk A, Moore BC. Implementation of a fast method for measuring psychophysical tuning curves. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (04) 237-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Charaziak KK, Souza P, Siegel JH. Time-efficient measures of auditory frequency selectivity. Int J Audiol 2012; 51 (04) 317-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Cleveland WS. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assn 1979; 74: 829-836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Kluk K, Moore BC. Detecting dead regions using psychophysical tuning curves: a comparison of simultaneous and forward masking. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (08) 463-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Kishon-Rabin L, Segal O, Algom D. Associations and dissociations between psychoacoustic abilities and speech perception in adolescents with severe-to-profound hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009; 52 (04) 956-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Smalt CJ, Heinz MG, Strickland EA. Modeling the time-varying and level-dependent effects of the medial olivocochlear reflex in auditory nerve responses. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2014; 15 (02) 159-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Kale S, Heinz MG. Temporal modulation transfer functions measured from auditory-nerve responses following sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res 2012; 286 (1-2): 64-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Swaminathan J, Heinz MG. Psychophysiological analyses demonstrate the importance of neural envelope coding for speech perception in noise. J Neurosci 2012; 32 (05) 1747-1756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Henry KS, Heinz MG. Effects of sensorineural hearing loss on temporal coding of narrowband and broadband signals in the auditory periphery. Hear Res 2013; 303: 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Otsuka S, Furukawa S, Yamagishi S, Hirota K, Kashino M. Relation between cochlear mechanics and performance of temporal fine structure-based tasks. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2016; 17 (06) 541-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Aushana Y, Souffi S, Edeline JM, Lorenzi C, Huetz C. Robust neuronal discrimination in primary auditory cortex despite degradations of spectro-temporal acoustic details: comparison between guinea pigs with normal hearing and mild age-related hearing loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2018; 19 (02) 163-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Ardoint M, Agus T, Sheft S, Lorenzi C. Importance of temporal-envelope speech cues in different spectral regions. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130 (02) EL115-EL121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Rosen S. Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1992; 336: 367-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Grimault N, Bacon SP, Micheyl C. Auditory stream segregation on the basis of amplitude-modulation rate. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111 (03) 1340-1348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Souza PE, Boike KT. Combining temporal-envelope cues across channels: effects of age and hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2006; 49 (01) 138-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Turner CW, Souza PE, Forget LN. Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97 (04) 2568-2576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Seldran F, Gallego S, Micheyl C, Veuillet E, Truy E, Thai-Van H. 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 2011; 12 (04) 519-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Choi JE, Hong SH, Won JH. , et al. Evaluation of cochlear implant candidates using a non-linguistic spectrotemporal modulation detection test. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 35235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Etymotic Research. QuickSIN Speech in Noise test. Elk Grove Village, IL: Etymotic Research; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 84 Hodgson M, Steininger G, Razavi Z. Measurement and prediction of speech and noise levels and the Lombard effect in eating establishments. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121 (04) 2023-2033
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Olsen WO. Average speech levels and spectra in various speaking/listening conditions: a summary of the Pearson, Bennett & Fidell (1977) report. Am J Audiol 1998; 7 (02) 21-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Pope DS, Gallun FJ, Kampel S. Effect of hospital noise on patients' ability to hear, understand, and recall speech. Res Nurs Health 2013; 36 (03) 228-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Nondahl DM, Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Tweed TS, Klein R, Klein BE. Accuracy of self-reported hearing loss. Audiology 1998; 37 (05) 295-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Gatehouse S, Noble W. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (02) 85-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Brokx JP, Noteboom SG. Intonation and the perceptual segregation of competing voices. J Phonetics 1982; 10: 23-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Shen J, Souza PE. The effect of dynamic pitch on speech recognition in temporally modulated noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017; 60 (09) 2725-2739
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Shen J, Souza PE. Do older listeners with hearing loss benefit from dynamic pitch for speech recognition in noise?. Am J Audiol 2017; 26 (3S): 462-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Jenstad LM, Souza PE. Quantifying the effect of compression hearing aid release time on speech acoustics and intelligibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005; 48 (03) 651-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Souza PE, Jenstad LM, Boike KT. Measuring the acoustic effects of compression amplification on speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 119 (01) 41-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Souza PE, Turner CW. Effect of single-channel compression on temporal speech information. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39 (05) 901-911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Souza PE, Turner CW. Multichannel compression, temporal cues, and audibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998; 41 (02) 315-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Drullman R, Festen JM, Plomp R. Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95 (5, Pt 1): 2670-2680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Noordhoek IM, Drullman R. Effect of reducing temporal intensity modulations on sentence intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 101 (01) 498-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Boothroyd A, Springer N, Smith L, Schulman J. Amplitude compression and profound hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 1988; 31 (03) 362-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 De Gennaro S, Braida LD, Durlach NI. Multichannel syllabic compression for severely impaired listeners. J Rehabil Res Dev 1986; 23 (01) 17-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Souza PE, Bishop RD. Improving speech audibility with wide dynamic range compression in listeners with severe sensorineural loss. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (06) 461-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Drullman R, Smoorenburg GF. Audio-visual perception of compressed speech by profoundly hearing-impaired subjects. Audiology 1997; 36 (03) 165-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Souza PE, Jenstad LM, Folino R. Using multichannel wide-dynamic range compression in severely hearing-impaired listeners: effects on speech recognition and quality. Ear Hear 2005; 26 (02) 120-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Souza P, Brennan MA, Davies-Venn E. Using Short vs. Long Time Constants in Severe Loss. Scottsdale, AZ: American Auditory Society; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 104 Weile JN, Behrens T, Wagener K. An improved option for people with severe to profound hearing losses. Hearing Review 2011; 32-45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Gevonden MJ, Myin-Germeys I, van den Brink W, van Os J, Selten JP, Booij J. Psychotic reactions to daily life stress and dopamine function in people with severe hearing impairment. Psychol Med 2015; 45 (08) 1665-1674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Lucas L, Katiri R, Kitterick PT. The psychological and social consequences of single-sided deafness in adulthood. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (01) 21-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Detaille SI, Haafkens JA, van Dijk FJH. What employees with rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes mellitus and hearing loss need to cope at work. Scand J Work Environ Health 2003; 29 (02) 134-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Lin FR, Metter EJ, O'Brien RJ, Resnick SM, Zonderman AB, Ferrucci L. Hearing loss and incident dementia. Arch Neurol 2011; 68 (02) 214-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Aazh H, Prasher D, Nanchahal K, Moore BC. Hearing-aid use and its determinants in the UK National Health Service: a cross-sectional study at the Royal Surrey County Hospital. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (03) 152-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Harkins J, Tucker P. An internet survey of individuals with hearing loss regarding assistive listening devices. Trends Amplif 2007; 11 (02) 91-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. 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 2004; 116 (4, Pt 1): 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar