Relationships between self-report and cognitive measures of hearing aid outcome

Abstract This present study examined the relationship between cognitive measures and self-report hearing aid outcome. A sentence-final word identification and recall (SWIR) test was used to investigate how hearing aid use may relate to experienced explicit cognitive processing. A visually based cognitive test battery was also administered. To measure self-report hearing aid outcome, the International Outcome Inventory – Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) were employed. Twenty-six experienced hearing aid users (mean age of 59 years) with symmetrical moderate-to-moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss were recruited. Free recall performance in the SWIR test correlated negatively with item 3 of IOI-HA, which measures residual difficulty in adverse listening situations. Cognitive abilities related to verbal information processing were correlated positively with self-reported hearing aid use and overall success. The present study showed that reported residual difficulty with hearing aid may relate to experienced explicit processing in difficult listening conditions, such that individuals with better cognitive capacity tended to report more remaining difficulty in challenging listening situations. The possibility of using cognitive measures to predict hearing aid outcome in real life should be explored in future research.

[1]  S. Kramer,et al.  Translations of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): Traducciones del Inventario Internacional de Resultados para Auxiliares Auditivos (IOI-HA) , 2002, International journal of audiology.

[2]  Robert H. Logie,et al.  Components of fluent reading , 1985 .

[3]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Cognition and hearing aids. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[4]  Pamela Souza,et al.  Working Memory, Age, and Hearing Loss: Susceptibility to Hearing Aid Distortion , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[5]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version: El Inventario International de Resultados para Auxiliares Auditivos (IOI-HA): propiedades psicometricas de la version en ingles , 2002, International journal of audiology.

[6]  M. Akeroyd.  Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[7]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Working memory supports listening in noise for persons with hearing impairment. , 2011, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[8]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[9]  C. Grady.  The cognitive neuroscience of ageing , 2012, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[10]  I. M. Ventry,et al.  The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a New Tool , 1982, Ear and hearing.

[11]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users , 2013, International journal of audiology.

[12]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  Cognitive and communicative function : The effects of chronological age and "handicap age" , 1990 .

[13]  B. Weinstein,et al.  The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults: psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[14]  B Lyxell.  Skilled speechreading: a single-case study. , 1994, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[15]  S. Kramer,et al.  International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): results from the Netherlands: El Inventario Internacional de Resultados para Auxiliares Auditivos (IOI-HA): resultados en los Países Bajos , 2002, International journal of audiology.

[16]  T. Lunner,et al.  Visual information can hinder working memory processing of speech. , 2013, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[17]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Speech recognition in adverse conditions: A review , 2012 .

[18]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Recognition of speech in noise with new hearing instrument compression release settings requires explicit cognitive storage and processing capacity. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[19]  H. Levitt.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Brent Edwards,et al.  The Future of Hearing Aid Technology , 2007, Trends in amplification.

[21]  Larry E. Humes,et al.  Modeling and Predicting Hearing Aid Outcome , 2003, Trends in amplification.

[22]  K. Brännström,et al.  Hearing aid fitting outcome: clinical application and psychometric properties of a Swedish translation of the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA). , 2010, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[23]  Gabrielle H Saunders,et al.  The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) and Its Relationship to Aided Reported Handicap and Hearing Aid Satisfaction , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[24]  M. Akeroyd,et al.  Two-eared listening in dynamic situations , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[25]  K Spens,et al.  Vibrotactile speech tracking support: cognitive prerequisites. , 1998, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[26]  S. Arlinger,et al.  Visual evoked potentials: relation to adult speechreading and cognitive function. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[27]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  E. Fransen,et al.  Hearing Disability Measured by the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale in Clinically Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Middle-Aged Persons, and Disability Screening by Means of a Reduced SSQ (the SSQ5) , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[29]  M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller,et al.  Cognitive aging and auditory information processing , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[30]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[31]  M I Posner,et al.  Chronometric analysis of classification. , 1967, Psychological review.

[32]  G. Andersson,et al.  Psychometric evaluation of hearing specific self-report measures and their associations with psychosocial and demographic variables , 2007 .

[33]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  Estimation of the Ideal Binary Mask using Directional Systems , 2008 .

[34]  T. Lunner,et al.  Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. , 2012, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[35]  R. Cox,et al.  Validation of the SADL questionnaire. , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[36]  W. Noble,et al.  The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[37]  T. Lunner,et al.  Cognition counts: A working memory system for ease of language understanding (ELU) , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[38]  Jerker Rönnberg,et al.  Processing Load Induced by Informational Masking Is Related to Linguistic Abilities , 2012, International journal of otolaryngology.

[39]  Birgitta Larsby,et al.  A Swedish version of the Hearing In Noise Test (HINT) for measurement of speech recognition , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[40]  T. Lunner,et al.  Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. , 2009, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[41]  Tammo Houtgast,et al.  Occupational performance: Comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the Amsterdam Checklist for Hearing and Work , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[42]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings – 2. Patterns of candidature , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[43]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[44]  Stephen A Fausti,et al.  The Performance-Perceptual Test and Its Relationship to Unaided Reported Handicap , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[45]  R M Cox,et al.  Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[46]  R. Cox,et al.  Expectations about hearing aids and their relationship to fitting outcome. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[47]  M. S. Lewis,et al.  Expectations, prefitting counseling, and hearing aid outcome. , 2009, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[48]  J. Rönnberg.  Cognition in the hearing impaired and deaf as a bridge between signal and dialogue: a framework and a model , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[49]  L. Humes.  The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[50]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Phonological coding and short-term memory in patients without speech , 1985 .

[51]  S. Arlinger,et al.  Speech understanding in quiet and noise, with and without hearing aids , 2005, International journal of audiology.

[52]  B Hagerman,et al.  Efficient adaptive methods for measuring speech reception threshold in quiet and in noise. , 1995, Scandinavian audiology.

[53]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[54]  Sridhar Kalluri,et al.  Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. , 2009, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[55]  B. Hagerman,et al.  Successful and unsuccessful users of bilateral amplification: Differences and similarities in binaural performance , 2010, International journal of audiology.