Hearing ; Hearing Aids ; Prostheses and Implants

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: MarkeTrak Survey is designed to evaluate the sociodemographic and HA factors of hearing aid (HA) users and their satisfaction of use. The questionnaire is inconvenient to use because it asked too many questions and requires long time to answer. The purpose of this study was to develop a simplified ("Ajou") version of MarkeTrak Survey and to evaluate its reliability. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: Forty-five HA users who visited the Ajou Hearing Center from 2014 to 2015 were included in the present study. To examine the correlation of the Korean version and the Ajou version of MarkeTrak Survey, 42 patients completed each survey simultaneously. To examine the reliability of Ajou version, test-retest and internal consistency methods were used. For the test-retest method, 22 HA users repeated the survey 2-4 weeks later. RESULTS: The newly developed "Ajou" version of MarkeTrak Survey consisted of 12 questions and was more simplified. Most of the questions of the two surveys showed significant correlation coefficient values (Spearman correlation, p<0.05). For the test-retest method, most questions showed significant correlation coefficient values (Spearman correlation, p<0.05), but they showed lower values than 0.6 in many cases. It showed high internal consistency of overall HA satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The Ajou version may be used as a simplified and alternative questionnaire for the Korean version of MarkeTrak Survey.
Hearing Aids* ; Hearing* ; Humans ; Methods

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This investigation evaluated the level of subjective satisfaction in hearing aid users by using Abbrieviate Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The APHAB is a subjective evaluation method for hearing aid users. The APHAB consists of 24 items with 4 subscales including Ease of Communication (EC), Reverberation (RV), Background noise (BN), and Aversiveness (AV). 3Ve applied for APHAR to evaluate the subjective satisfaction level in 45 compressive types of hearing aids. The APHAB scores were evaluated according to the types of hearing loss, audiologic patterns of pure tone audiograms, the degree of SRT and the types of hearing aids. In each item, subjects respond to each question on the basis of how they believe the performance of their hearing aid is using a 7-point scale. Subjects were tested both unaided and aided for each specified listening situation. The hearing aid benefit is defined as the diR'erence of percentage between the unaided and aided performance scores. RESULTS: In SRT, moderate hearing loss group showed a higher satisfaction in Ease of Communication, Aversiveness (p<0.05). The group that showed a flat audiogram revealed a higher satisfaction in Ease of Communication, Background noise (p<0.01). There was no significant difference of scores of benefit in types of hearing loss and types of hearing aids. CONCLUSION: Hearing aids are more beneficial in patients who have moderate hearing loss and flat audiogram pattern.
Hearing Aids* ; Hearing Loss ; Hearing* ; Humans ; Noise

Bone Conduction ; Hearing Aids ; Humans

Bone Conduction ; Hearing Aids ; Humans

Bone-anchored hearing aid is a hearing assisting technology that raise the hearing level via bone conduct and is also the only implantable hearing assisting device working by bone conduct. Because of the superior performance and simple process of implantation, it brings gospel to the patients who are not fitting the air conducting hearing devices. This article is a review of bone-anchored hearing aid from 6 aspects, including history, principle, indication, consulting, surgery and complication.
Hearing Aids ; Humans ; Suture Anchors

OBJECTIVES: The goal of the present study was to examine whether Acceptable Noise Levels (ANLs) would be lower (greater acceptance of noise) in binaural listening than in monaural listening condition and also whether meaningfulness of background speech noise would affect ANLs for directional microphone hearing aid users. In addition, any relationships between the individual binaural benefits on ANLs and the individuals' demographic information were investigated. METHODS: Fourteen hearing aid users (mean age, 64 years) participated for experimental testing. For the ANL calculation, listeners' most comfortable listening levels and background noise level were measured. Using Korean ANL material, ANLs of all participants were evaluated under monaural and binaural amplification with a counterbalanced order. The ANLs were also compared across five types of competing speech noises, consisting of 1- through 8-talker background speech maskers. Seven young normal-hearing listeners (mean age, 27 years) participated for the same measurements as a pilot testing. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that directional hearing aid users accepted more noise (lower ANLs) with binaural amplification than with monaural amplification, regardless of the type of competing speech. When the background speech noise became more meaningful, hearing-impaired listeners accepted less amount of noise (higher ANLs), revealing that ANL is dependent on the intelligibility of the competing speech. The individuals' binaural advantages in ANLs were significantly greater for the listeners with longer experience of hearing aids, yet not related to their age or hearing thresholds. CONCLUSION: Binaural directional microphone processing allowed hearing aid users to accept a greater amount of background noise, which may in turn improve listeners' hearing aid success. Informational masking substantially influenced background noise acceptance. Given a significant association between ANLs and duration of hearing aid usage, ANL measurement can be useful for clinical counseling of binaural hearing aid candidates or unsuccessful users.
Counseling ; Hearing ; Hearing Aids* ; Masks ; Noise*

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In our previous studies we explored the social representation of hearing loss and hearing aids. In this study we aimed at exploring if the positive, neutral and negative connotations associated with the social representation of 'hearing loss' and 'hearing aids' for the same categories vary across countries. In addition, we also looked at if there is an association between connotations and demographic variables. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 404 individuals from four countries were asked to indicate the words and phrases that comes to mind when they think about 'hearing loss' and 'hearing aids'. They also indicated if the words and phrases they reported had positive, neutral or negative association, which were analyzed and reported in this paper. RESULTS: There are considerable differences among the countries in terms of positive, neutral and negative associations report for each category in relation to hearing loss and hearing aids. However, there is limited connection between demographic variables and connotations reported in different countries. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggesting that the social representation about the phenomenon hearing loss and hearing aids are relatively stable within respondents of each country.
Hearing Aids ; Hearing Loss ; Surveys and Questionnaires

No abstract available.
Aged* ; Hearing Aids* ; Hearing* ; Humans ; Presbycusis* ; Rehabilitation*

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The quantification of hearing aid benefit is important in hearing aid fitting. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB) is a useful tool for measuring the benefit of using hearing aids. In this study, we developed a Korean version of APHAB (K-APHAB) and determined its validity and reliability. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: An expert panel translated the original version of APHAB into Korean language. Two bilingual translators back-translated the first translated version into English and it was compared with the original version. After cognitive debriefing, the translation of APHAB into the Korean version was completed. One hundred ninety-seven subjects using hearing aids participated in this study and completed K-APHAB. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and validity was evaluated by factor analysis and criterion validity. RESULTS: K-APHAB had a good internal consistency (α=0.80). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that K-APHAB is comprised of four subsections, namely ‘communication in daily life’, ‘aversiveness’, communication in ‘background noise’ or ‘reverberation’. CONCLUSION: The K-APHAB is a useful tool for evaluating the benefit of hearing aids in Korean hearing-impaired individuals.
Hearing Aids* ; Hearing* ; Methods ; Reproducibility of Results