 |
|
Efficacy of 3 Commonly Used Hearing Aid Circuits
A Crossover Trial
Vernon D. Larson, PhD;
David W. Williams, MS;
William G. Henderson, PhD;
Lynn E. Luethke, PhD;
Lucille B. Beck, PhD;
Douglas Noffsinger, PhD;
Richard H. Wilson, PhD;
Robert A. Dobie, MD;
George B. Haskell, PhD;
Gene W. Bratt, PhD;
Janet E. Shanks, PhD;
Patricia Stelmachowicz, PhD;
Gerald A. Studebaker, PhD;
Allen E. Boysen, PhD;
Amy Donahue, PhD;
Rinaldo Canalis, MD;
Stephen A. Fausti, PhD;
Bruce Z. Rappaport, PhD;
for the Participants of the NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial Group
JAMA. 2000;284:1806-1813.
Context Numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit for a wide range of sensorineural hearing loss, but no carefully controlled, multicenter clinical trials comparing hearing aid efficacy have been conducted.
Objective To compare the benefits provided to patients with sensorineural hearing loss by 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits.
Design Double-blind, 3-period, 3-treatment crossover trial conducted from May 1996 to February 1998.
Setting Eight audiology laboratories at Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers across the United States.
Patients A sample of 360 patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (mean age, 67.2 years; 57% male; 78.6% white).
Intervention Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 sequences of linear peak clipper (PC), compression limiter (CL), and wide dynamic range compressor (WDRC) hearing aid circuits. All patients wore each of the 3 hearing aids, which were installed in identical casements, for 3 months.
Main Outcome Measures Results of tests of speech recognition, sound quality, and subjective hearing aid benefit, administered at baseline and after each 3-month intervention with and without a hearing aid. At the end of the experiment, patients ranked the 3 hearing aid circuits.
Results Each circuit markedly improved speech recognition, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech (all 52-dB and 62-dB conditions, P .001). All 3 circuits significantly reduced the frequency of problems encountered in verbal communication. Some test results suggested that CL and WDRC circuits provided a significantly better listening experience than PC circuits in word recognition (P = .002), loudness (P = .003), overall liking (P = .001), aversiveness of environmental sounds (P = .02), and distortion (P = .02). In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the CL hearing aid circuits more frequently (41.6%) than the WDRC (29.8%) and the PC (28.6%) (P = .001 for CL vs both WDRC and PC).
Conclusions Each circuit provided significant benefit in quiet and noisy listening situations. The CL and WDRC circuits appeared to provide superior benefits compared with the PC, although the differences between them were much less than the differences between the aided vs unaided conditions.
Author Affiliations: Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC (Drs Larson, Beck, and Boysen); Hines VA Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Hines, Ill (Mr Williams and Dr Henderson); National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, Bethesda, Md (Drs Luethke and Donahue); Greater Los Angeles VA Health Care System, Los Angeles, Calif (Dr Noffsinger); Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mountain Home, Tenn (Dr Wilson); University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio (Dr Dobie); Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Iowa City, Iowa (Dr Haskell); Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn (Dr Bratt); Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, Calif (Dr Shanks); Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha, Neb (Dr Stelmachowicz); University of Memphis, Memphis, Tenn (Dr Studebaker); Harborview/University of California, Los Angeles, Medical Center, Torrance (Dr Canalis); Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, Ore (Dr Fausti); and Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Albuquerque, NM (Dr Rappaport).
RELATED ARTICLE
October 11, 2000
JAMA. 2000;284(14):1863-1864.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Adult Aural Rehabilitation: What Is It and Does It Work?
Boothroyd
TRENDS AMPLIF 2007;11:63-71.
ABSTRACT
Ranking Hearing Aid Input-Output Functions for Understanding Low-, Conversational-, and High-Level Speech in Multitalker Babble
Chung et al.
JSLHR 2007;50:304-322.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
An Overview of Variance Inflation Factors for Sample-Size Calculation
Hsieh et al.
Eval Health Prof 2003;26:239-257.
ABSTRACT
Modeling and Predicting Hearing Aid Outcome
Humes
TRENDS AMPLIF 2003;7:41-75.
ABSTRACT
Effects of Compression on Speech Acoustics, Intelligibility, and Sound Quality
Souza
TRENDS AMPLIF 2002;6:131-165.
ABSTRACT
|
