目的:通过使用类似于真实听力环境的语音噪声测试测量客观和主观表现,来研究单侧耳聋(SSD)患者的软骨传导(CC)重新路由设备是否不劣于空气传导(AC)重新路由设备。声音定位测试,和标准化问卷。
方法:前瞻性,单受试者随机,交叉研究。
方法:大学内的消声室。
方法:9名年龄在21至58岁之间的成年人患有严重或深度单侧感觉神经性听力损失。
方法:评估患者的基线听力;然后他们使用软骨传导对侧信号装置(CC-CROS)和空气传导CROS助听器(AC-CROS)。患者以随机分配的顺序佩戴每个设备2周。
方法:三个主要结果指标是:1)语音噪声测试,测量语音接收阈值;2)正确声音定位响应的比例;3)问卷上的分数,“助听器受益的缩写简介”(APHAB)和“演讲,Spatial,和听力质量量表,含12个问题(SSQ-12)。
结果:当环境噪声时,语音接收阈值显着提高,语音从正面或耳侧显示,同时显示CC-CROS和AC-CROS。当演讲从更好的耳朵一侧发表时,AC-CROS显著提高了性能,而CC-CROS无显著影响。这两种设备主要恶化了声音定位,而APHAB和SSQ-12评分显示出益处。
结论:CC-CROS在噪声中的听力表现并不差,除非在环境噪声下将语音呈现给较好的耳朵。主观测量表明,患者意识到两种设备的有效性。
OBJECTIVE: To investigate if cartilage conduction (CC) rerouting devices are noninferior to air-conduction (AC) rerouting devices for single-sided deafness (SSD) patients by measuring objective and subjective performance using speech-in-noise tests that resemble a realistic hearing environment, sound localization tests, and standardized questionnaires.
METHODS: Prospective, single-subject randomized, crossover
study.
METHODS: Anechoic room inside a university.
METHODS: Nine adults between 21 and 58 years of age with severe or profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss.
METHODS: Patients\' baseline hearing was assessed; they then used both the cartilage conduction contralateral routing of signals device (CC-CROS) and an air-conduction CROS hearing aid (AC-CROS). Patients wore each device for 2 weeks in a randomly assigned order.
METHODS: Three main outcome measures were 1) speech-in-noise tests, measuring speech reception thresholds; 2) proportion of correct sound localization responses; and 3) scores on the questionnaires, \"Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit\" (APHAB) and \"Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale\" with 12 questions (SSQ-12).
RESULTS: Speech reception threshold improved significantly when noise was ambient, and speech was presented from the front or the poor-ear side with both CC-CROS and AC-CROS. When speech was delivered from the better-ear side, AC-CROS significantly improved performance, whereas CC-CROS had no significant effect. Both devices mainly worsened sound localization, whereas the APHAB and SSQ-12 scores showed benefits.
CONCLUSIONS: CC-CROS has noninferior hearing-in-noise performance except when the speech was presented to the better ear under ambient noise. Subjective measures showed that the patients realized the effectiveness of both devices.