ライフサイエンスコーパス: hearing aid

1 ts or durable medical equipment (a proxy for hearing aids).

2 eech in such situations, even when wearing a hearing aid.

3 than 50; 44% of respondents had never used a hearing aid.

4 umber of channels and the flexibility of the hearing aid.

5 included in the processing path of a digital hearing aid.

6 al and temporal information delivered by the hearing aid.

7 the people who failed the test did not own a hearing aid.

8 This idea was tested using a simulated hearing aid.

9 ven with amplification from a modern digital hearing aid.

10 greatest in participants who did not wear a hearing aid.

11 in signal-to-noise ratio by, for instance, a hearing aid.

12 s were identified for assessing the usage of hearing aids.

13 nce on harms of screening or treatments with hearing aids.

14 rineural hearing impairment were fitted with hearing aids.

15 sons in the fitting of today's sophisticated hearing aids.

16 psychopathology when assessed while wearing hearing aids.

17 d the measurement of the benefits offered by hearing aids.

18 Patients requiring amplification receive hearing aids.

19 ed in light of the processing constraints of hearing aids.

20 t ratios in view of the high cost of digital hearing aids.

21 of the range of performance variability with hearing aids.

22 The ANL was also assessed without hearing aids.

23 potentials recorded while the listener wears hearing aids.

24 on the challenges and recent developments in hearing aids.

25 view of dynamic-range compression in digital hearing aids.

26 aring, in addition to the cost and stigma of hearing aids.

27 of hearing aid gain and output for nonlinear hearing aids.

28 wide-dynamic-range compression, in-the-canal hearing aids.

29 who derive no material benefit from acoustic hearing aids.

30 lternative approach to conventional acoustic hearing aids.

31 production and especially relevant in modern hearing aids.

32 oding in emerging applications such as smart hearing aids.

33 Most of them can be treated with hearing aids.

34 in today's society, even with modern digital hearing aids.

35 ild and 11.9% had significant SNHL requiring hearing aids.

36 pressive language since she had received the hearing aids.

37 of hearing loss was made, and she was given hearing aids.

38 nnel amplitude compression is widely used in hearing aids.

39 specific signals in technical microphones or hearing aids.

40 methods for fitting multichannel compression hearing aids.

41 listening to live and reproduced music with hearing aids.

42 the MHA and its influence on the fitting of hearing aids.

43 ds and the techniques used in the fitting of hearing aids.

44 A) described a device used in the fitting of hearing aids.

45 to a number of rationales for the fitting of hearing aids.

46 totally implantable cochlear- or middle-ear hearing aids.

47 reased risk in people with hearing loss with hearing aids (1.04 [0.98-1.10]).

48 ing loss, (2) provision of an air conduction hearing aid, (3) inclusion of hearing aid usage measure(

49 ignal, (2) modification of the signal by the hearing aid, (3) interaction between sound at the output

50 multistage framework for understanding how a hearing aid affects performance.

51 Cognitive-behavioural therapy and hearing aids alone had large effect sizes, which could n

52 tifying important attributes associated with hearing aids among those with hearing loss.

53 nd hearing loss who gain little benefit from hearing aid amplification.

54 ysis of speech measured at the output of the hearing aid and auditory evoked potentials recorded whil

55 teraction between sound at the output of the hearing aid and the listener's ear, (4) integrity of the

56 a personal device that could work both with hearing aids and a range of transmission media.

57 ineural HL (SNHL) with treatments limited to hearing aids and cochlear implants with no FDA-approved

58 Current interventions (primarily hearing aids and cochlear implants) offer imperfect and

59 ceptual difference or relative ranking among hearing aids and electroacoustic characteristics.

60 in 380 veterans (approximately half received hearing aids and half served as controls) by examining g

61 's perspective on the development of digital hearing aids and how digital signal processing approache

62 be applied to robust speech recognition and hearing aids and may be extended to other acoustic imagi

63 and postfitting considerations in providing hearing aids and other assistive technology to individua

64 The results may be useful for improving hearing aids and setting patients' expectations.

65 Unfortunately, performance with hearing aids and the benefit obtained from using them va

66 the MHA have molded the modern perception of hearing aids and the techniques used in the fitting of h

67 in elderly people and levels of ownership of hearing aids and use.

68 ecommendations for assistive devices such as hearing aids and/or frequency modulated systems (P < .00

69 or amplification, selecting and purchasing a hearing aid, and getting accustomed to its use is a daun

70 ith information about the respondents, their hearing aids, and their hearing loss are described.

71 lectroacoustic parameters in today's digital hearing aids-and the lack of procedural guidelines neces

72 Cognitive-behavioural therapy, hearing aids, app-based structured counselling, or app-b

73 th hearing loss wearing cochlear implants or hearing aids appraise self-esteem.

74 Annoyance and aversiveness with the hearing aid approximated normal perception.

75 Hearing aids are helpful to patients but can have poor s

76 d digital approaches to signal processing in hearing aids are identified.

77 Recent developments in hearing aids are reviewed in the context of the author's

78 education about communication effectiveness, hearing aids, assistive listening devices, and cochlear

79 998 (46%) of 2180 people wearing a hearing aid at the time of testing failed the whispered

80 sonal differences among audiologists and the hearing aids audiologists choose to dispense are related

81 h allows to evaluate hearing loss and adjust hearing aids based on brain responses.

82 total scores) and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Hearing Aid Handicap

83 The Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was used to compare patients

84 to amplified speech, auditory disability and hearing aid benefit, and candidature for linear and nonl

85 in audiometric assessment and measurement of hearing-aid benefit in infants must be borne in mind.

86 to be significant predictors: more expected hearing aid benefits, greater social pressure, and great

87 ted with adverse health outcomes, but use of hearing aids by older adults is low and disparities exis

88 eople, who gain no benefit from conventional hearing aids, can receive speech cues by direct electric

89 ones situated 1 cm apart in a behind-the-ear hearing-aid capsule.

90 Hearing aids change the sensory environment by stimulati

91 ank-order ratings, patients preferred the CL hearing aid circuits more frequently (41.6%) than the WD

92 end of the experiment, patients ranked the 3 hearing aid circuits.

93 L), and wide dynamic range compressor (WDRC) hearing aid circuits.

94 Before the use of the WHO-DAS II in hearing aid clinical trials, however, the responsiveness

95 hildren with hearing loss may include use of hearing aids, cochlear implants, bone anchored devices,

96 Modern hearing aids commonly employ digital noise reduction (DN

97 llowed for simulated or actual adjustment of hearing aid components that resulted in a changed hearin

98 livery devices and receiver-in-the-ear-canal hearing aid configuration) to reduce the occlusion effec

99 th 16-channel wide-dynamic-range compression hearing aids containing DNR processing.

100 hat the enjoyment of listening to music with hearing aids could be improved by an increase of the inp

101 ise reduction schemes are being used in most hearing aids currently marketed.

102 62), amifostine would decrease the need for hearing aids (defined as >or= grade 3 ototoxicity in one

103 This review discusses the challenges in hearing aid design and fitting and the recent developmen

104 he occlusion effect pose great challenges in hearing aid design and usage.

105 emphasizes techniques that are promising for hearing aid design.

106 processing approaches have led to changes in hearing aid design.

107 een pursued for its potential application to hearing-aid design in which an attention-guided algorith

108 the audiologist, (2) characteristics of the hearing aids dispensed by the audiologist, (3) character

109 Nose, and Throat specialist ( n = 110) or a hearing aid dispenser ( n = 267) filled in a baseline qu

110 Many people who own a hearing aid do not use it regularly, and even when weari

111 n-platform programming options, rechargeable hearing aids, ear-level frequency modulated (FM) receive

112 olled, multicenter clinical trials comparing hearing aid efficacy have been conducted.

113 ed to determine the predictors of entering a hearing aid evaluation period (HAEP) using a prospective

114 ystem of some listeners can be modified with hearing aid experience.

115 ility in the dispensing rates of four common hearing aid features.

116 f these, 68% (n = 369) were suitable and had hearing aids fitted to NAL NL1 during the assess-and-fit

117 ted at baseline and at 2 intervals following hearing aid fitting (2 and 6 weeks).

118 Delays in hearing aid fitting and CI referral were categorized as

119 audiologists supporting decision-making for hearing aid fitting and CI referral.

120 A major decision at the time of hearing aid fitting and dispensing is the amount of ampl

121 recording in the pathway facilitated earlier hearing aid fitting for milder impairments.

122 e has also been a national trend for earlier hearing aid fitting in children, the current study demon

123 Results showed that the median age of hearing aid fitting prior to CAEP introduction was 9.2 m

124 Data analysis explored the age of diagnosis, hearing aid fitting, and referral for cochlear implant (

125 ool to efficiently assess outcome domains in hearing aid fitting.

126 gathered prior to and then 6 weeks following hearing aid fitting.

127 users obtained significant benefit after new hearing aid fitting.

128 ce and aversiveness of sounds at the time of hearing aid fitting.

129 ction was attributable to earlier fitting of hearing aids for children with mild and moderate hearing

130 ention has been paid to the effectiveness of hearing aids for listening to music.

131 han three times the benefit of our subjects' hearing aids for speech processing in noisy listening co

132 dresses the issue of initial verification of hearing aid gain and output for nonlinear hearing aids.

133 When hearing aid gain is prescribed by software, gain is calc

134 Acoustic hearing aids generate amplified sound in the ear canal,

135 explore the possible benefit of using both a hearing aid (HA) and a CI at one ear while using a HA at

136 Combined use of a hearing aid (HA) and cochlear implant (CI) has been show

137 l four types of stimuli, listening with both hearing aid (HA) and cochlear implant (CI) was significa

138 aring loss, people with hearing loss without hearing aids had an increased risk of all-cause dementia

139 ofile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Hearing Aid Handicap for the Elderly (HHIE), two disease

140 Low utilization of hearing aids has drawn increased attention to the study

141 with bilateral hearing loss, the use of two hearing aids (HAs) offers the potential to restore the b

142 Hearing aids have advanced significantly over the past d

143 Hearing aids have been demonstrated to improve hearing f

144 In randomized trials, hearing aids have been demonstrated to improve outcomes

145 gnal processing and fitting methods used for hearing aids have mainly been designed to optimize the i

146 Newer digital hearing aids have many features that improve performance

147 In patients requiring hearing aids, hearing loss was graded as severe in 49% (

148 Hearing aids help compensate for disorders of the ear by

149 The use of nonlinear hearing aids, however, could change the meaningfulness o

150 had at least grade 3 ototoxicity, requiring hearing aid in at least one ear.

151 Participants wore the hearing aids in each condition in a counterbalanced orde

152 The benefit of wearing hearing aids in multitalker, reverberant listening envir

153 ng aid users report difficulties using their hearing aids in noisy environments.

154 1999 have measured and reported the usage of hearing aids in older adults.

155 Reduced hearing is common and provision of hearing aids inadequate in elderly people.

156 , 36.8% (95% CI, 35.8%-37.9%) reported using hearing aids, including 56.7% (95% CI, 38.9%-74.4%) aged

157 Examples of studies that have shown hearing aid induced perceptual and/or physiological chan

158 Group outcomes for hearing aid intervention can be expected to be stable fo

159 come measures to assess the effectiveness of hearing aid intervention for this population.

160 total scores were sufficiently responsive to hearing aid intervention for use in future studies in wh

161 ent and the short- and long-term outcomes to hearing aid intervention had to be determined.

162 of the WHO-DAS II as an outcome measure for hearing aid intervention is warranted.

163 nt to measure the impact of hearing loss and hearing aid intervention on self-perceived HRQoL.

164 se-specific measures, were more sensitive to hearing aid intervention than the generic measure.

165 The short- and long-term outcomes of hearing aid intervention were also examined in the prese

166 on domain was not sufficiently responsive to hearing aid intervention.

167 and individual differences as a function of hearing aid intervention.

168 acle in realization of a totally implantable hearing aid is a lack of reliable implantable microphone

169 Stimulation with cochlear implants and hearing aids is becoming more widely clinically used in

170 d their impact on the development of digital hearing aids is discussed.

171 Nonadherence to use of hearing aids is high.

172 gain) as it pertains to linear and nonlinear hearing aids is reviewed.

173 fit specific to digital signal processing in hearing aids is stressed, as well as addressing cost-ben

174 f paired comparisons was introduced into the hearing aid literature nearly 50 years ago.

175 e the result of dispensing trends as much as hearing aid manufacturing trends.

176 Further, hearing aids may benefit from distinct amplification str

177 As early as the 1930s the term Master Hearing Aid (MHA) described a device used in the fitting

178 unique, yet complementary, contribution from hearing aids, middle ear implants, and cochlear implants

179 Where hearing aids no longer provide benefit, cochlear implant

180 rformance than normal-hearing listeners, and hearing aids often exacerbate matters.

181 rocessing and the effect of hearing loss and hearing aids on cortical auditory evoked potential measu

182 optoacoustic approach as a new type of laser hearing aid or middle ear implant.

183 nd was effective in the individuals treated; hearing aids or cochlear implants did not improve commun

184 bilateral blindness, 2.5% (64/2527) required hearing aids or cochlear implants, 49.9% (1277/2561) had

185 people with cochlear hearing loss, even with hearing aids or cochlear implants.

186 done by someone else after the provision of hearing aids or cochlear implants.

187 in adults with hearing loss, with or without hearing aids or cochlear implants.

188 , 95% CI: 0.98, 1.84), almost always using a hearing aid (OR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.12, 3.31 vs. never pre

189 ory (blindness, deafness, or need for visual/hearing aids), or neurocognitive/neurobehavioral functio

190 re needed to develop more complete models of hearing aid outcome and to identify the variables that i

191 IU-1 measured hearing aid outcome in 173 elderly wearers of single-cha

192 aring aid outcome measures, three studies of hearing aid outcome measures in elderly adults are prese

193 ial on the application of factor analysis to hearing aid outcome measures, three studies of hearing a

194 ences in performance along each dimension of hearing aid outcome revealed that these individual diffe

195 onship between usage and other dimensions of hearing aid outcome, age and hearing loss are summarised

196 variables that influence various aspects of hearing aid outcome.

197 ictor of performance along this dimension of hearing aid outcome.

198 nents captured the individual differences in hearing aid outcome.

199 nderstand the relationship between usage and hearing aid outcomes.

200 omplements the HFA to predict variability in hearing-aid outcomes for speech perception in noise.

201 efforts have attempted to narrow the gap in hearing aid ownership among older adults with hearing lo

202 th hearing loss wearing cochlear implants or hearing aids participated (Mean age: 12.88 years; mean d

203 echnology is becoming increasingly common in hearing aids, particularly because of the processing fle

204 Most hearing aid prescriptions focus on the optimization of a

205 c errors in speech perception, and therefore hearing aid prescriptions might benefit by including pre

206 nvelope distortions can be incorporated into hearing aid prescriptions.

207 ystems through the Veterans Affairs National Hearing Aid Program.

208 ication between the real-ear measurement and hearing aid programming software.

209 Although hearing aids provide increased audibility, they cannot c

210 Numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit for a wide rang

211 -term cognitive test scores after the use of hearing aids (ratio of means, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04, I

212 ng aid components that resulted in a changed hearing aid response.

213 2200 (60%) of 3846 people who owned a hearing aid said they used it regularly.

214 ted for most poorly was that associated with hearing aid satisfaction, with subjective measures of ai

215 f patients from the English Modernization of Hearing Aid Services evaluation, who used custom earmold

216 ion and auditory temporal processing skills, hearing-aid settings, working memory capacity, and pretr

217 roblems associated with manufacturing custom hearing aid shells.

218 has been discussed in the context of linear hearing aids since the early 1960s.

219 ppointments, and the numbers not accepting a hearing aid solution for their problem.

220 Finally, the applications of advanced hearing aid technologies to enhance other devices such a

221 a direct relation between price and level of hearing aid technology with the frequency of dispensing

222 see an even greater number of innovations to hearing aid technology, and this article attempts to pre

223 people with hearing loss who were not using hearing aids than those who had hearing loss and were us

224 al alternative to traditional amplification (hearing aids) that can facilitate spoken language develo

225 y as an inappropriate means of demonstrating hearing aids; the audio quality of the desktop systems w

226 he desktop systems was often superior to the hearing aids themselves.

227 roaches that can be used to design a digital hearing aid, this paper considers broadband compression,

228 When managed with hearing aids, this did not have an appreciable effect on

229 e respondents reported that they found their hearing aids to be helpful for listening to both live an

230 Compression is used in hearing aids to compensate for the effects of loudness r

231 how they may be used to "acoustically match" hearing aids to individual patients.

232 Further, various new developments in hearing aid transducers, telecoils, channel-free amplifi

233 Hearing aid treatment provided a functional, robust, and

234 Hearing aid treatment resulted in robust and statistical

235 in a very large group (N = 4,584) following hearing aid treatment was estimated using a revised vers

236 se of the WHO-DAS II as a generic measure in hearing aid trials research so as to allow for compariso

237 This was independent of hearing aid type (in-the-ear or in-the-canal) and circui

238 esults support the notion that predictors of hearing aid uptake are also predictive of entering a HAE

239 for more standardised level of reporting of hearing aid usage data to further understand the relatio

240 air conduction hearing aid, (3) inclusion of hearing aid usage measure(s) and (4) published between 1

241 Measures of hearing aid usage were less well accounted for by prefit

242 r hearing loss was associated with increased hearing aid use at 1 year, but screening was not associa

243 with the most accurate predictor of current hearing aid use being prior hearing aid use.

244 orldwide, the prevalence of hearing loss and hearing aid use is not known.

245 estionnaire that focused on attitudes toward hearing aid use postimplantation, patterns of usage, and

246 a complex interaction between hearing loss, hearing aid use, reverberation, and performance in audit

247 There are numerous barriers to hearing aid use, the most common of which is dissatisfac

248 ing loss before fitting and after 3 weeks of hearing aid use.

249 ictor of current hearing aid use being prior hearing aid use.

250 g loss, 21.7% (95% CI, 16.2%-28.3%) reported hearing aid use.

251 aring loss severity and participant-reported hearing aid use.

252 c measures of hearing loss and self-reported hearing aid use.

253 c measures of hearing loss and self-reported hearing aid use.

254 single subject level, despite the absence of hearing-aid use and poor oral language skills.

255 At 250 Hz, the sound delivery with the hearing aid used in this study added an additional reduc

256 Prior experience influenced benefit: New hearing aid users demonstrated the greatest magnitude of

257 social outcomes, and (5) whether experienced hearing aid users have different hearing-loss related ps

258 Hearing aid users report difficulties using their hearin

259 contained in speech can be recorded in adult hearing aid users using the acoustic change complex (ACC

260 Adult first-time hearing aid users with averaged sensorineural hearing lo

261 cific digital noise reduction system affects hearing aid users' perception of noise annoyance and ave

262 ed for participants who were not experienced hearing aid users, showed a consistent preference for CA

263 rectly improved the quality of life of adult hearing aid users.

264 ing-loss related psychosocial needs than new hearing aid users.

265 s with adult-onset hearing loss who were not hearing aid users.

266 Perhaps as a consequence, many hearing-aid users complain that they are not satisfied w

267 Sixty-eight hearing-aid users or candidates were fitted bilaterally

268 Responses from 523 hearing-aid users to 21 multiple-choice questions are pr

269 elligibility tended to be better for younger hearing-aid users with good unaided intelligibility in q

270 ter than for sound-localisation by bilateral hearing-aid users.

271 dates were fitted bilaterally with nonlinear hearing aids using standard procedures.

272 itting group who were expected to set up the hearing aids using the commercially supplied instruction

273 valuate the performance of a visually guided hearing aid (VGHA) under conditions designed to capture

274 using Markov models of the 2 care pathways (hearing aid vs surgery).

275 red subjects were tested, and the stimulated hearing aid was fitted individually using the CAM2A meth

276 A commercially available self-fitting OTC hearing aid was provided to participants in the self-fit

277 otorrhea in the left ear was noted after her hearing aid was removed.

278 ency and robustness in the way that usage of hearing aids was assessed and categorised.

279 Performance with Bernafon Acriva 9 hearing aids was compared with Fcomp off and Fcomp on.

280 found hearing loss and limited benefits from hearing aids, was associated with a larger improvement i

281 rsonal experience as an audiologist and as a hearing aid wearer.

282 mputerized aural rehabilitation programs for hearing aid wearers and cochlear implant recipients have

283 it will be possible to optimize outcome for hearing aid wearers.

284 uality randomized trial found that immediate hearing aids were effective compared with wait-list cont

285 Seven attributes of hearing aids were identified through qualitative researc

286 Hearing aids were provided from 3 months of age, but no

287 Available treatments include hearing aids when hearing loss is identified (even mild

288 plain that they are not satisfied with their hearing aids when listening to music.

289 es of well-selected and appropriately fitted hearing aids whereby the user reports minimal improvemen

290 All patients wore each of the 3 hearing aids, which were installed in identical casement

291 cremental and radical innovations in digital hearing aids will be driven by research advances in the

292 Respondents were twice as likely to buy a hearing aid with better functionality in noisy environme

293 ing via a simulated five-channel compression hearing aid with gains set using the CAM2 fitting method

294 hors find that although the use of bilateral hearing aids with a CI may only provide a slight benefit

295 ically, "urban legend" has it that nonlinear hearing aids with digital noise reduction circuitry may

296 earers of single-channel, linear, in-the-ear hearing aids with output-limiting compression, whereas I

297 babble to an individually programmed master hearing aid, with the output of an ear-simulating couple

298 an those who had hearing loss and were using hearing aids, with HRs of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.13-1.27) and 1

299 hted estimate, 6.4 million individuals) used hearing aids, with lower estimates among Black and Hispa

300 cle describes modern prescription theory for hearing aids within the context of a risk versus return