Objectives: Adults with hearing loss report a wide range of hearing aid satisfaction that does not significantly correlate to degree of hearing loss. It is not clear which auditory behavioral factors do contribute to hearing aid satisfaction. While poor speech understanding in noise is known to contribute to dissatisfaction, there are many categories of this type of assessment. The purpose of this systematic review is to answer the question, “Are behavioral pre-fitting measures using speech and nonspeech materials related to hearing aid satisfaction among adults?” Design: Six electronic databases were searched to find peer-reviewed studies published before June 2020. The included studies reported on the relationship between auditory behavioral measures and hearing aid satisfaction alone or globally with other outcome domains among adults with hearing loss. Six types of behavioral prefitting measures were evaluated: speech recognition in quiet (% correct), speech recognition in noise (% correct), reception thresholds for speech-in-noise, speech-based subjective ratings, dichotic speech tests, and tests using nonspeech material. Each relevant study was independently reviewed by two reviewers. Methodological quality was evaluated in each included study using the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s level of evidence ratings. Results: There were 1342 articles identified in the systematic review process. After duplicates were removed and specific inclusion criteria were applied, 21 studies were included. All studies included had a 0 to 4 methodological quality rating indicating weak to moderate internal validity. The tests that showed potential for clinical application due to significant correlations with satisfaction were the QuickSIN, the synthetic sentence identification, the hearing in noise test, and the acceptable noise level test. Audibility, as measured by degree of hearing loss, was not significantly correlated to hearing aid satisfaction in the 13 studies that reported on this measure. Conclusions: Based on this review, results indicated that speech-in-noise tests had the highest associations to hearing aid satisfaction, suggesting a greater role for assessment of speech-in-noise perception in auditory rehabilitation. This is an important finding for clinical practice, given that audibility was not a significant factor in predicting satisfaction. Overall, the results from this review show a need for well-designed, high-quality, prospective studies assessing the predictive value of prefitting measures on hearing aid satisfaction with current hearing aid models.

Purpose: The contributions from the central auditory and cognitive systems play a major role in communication. Understanding the relationship between auditory and cognitive abilities has implications for auditory rehabilitation for clinical patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to address the question, “In adults, what is the relationship between central auditory processing abilities and cognitive abilities?” Method: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to identify, screen, and determine eligibility for articles that addressed the research question of interest. Medical librarians and subject matter experts assisted in search strategy, keyword review, and structuring the systematic review process. To be included, articles needed to have an auditory measure (either behavioral or electrophysiologic), a cognitive measure that assessed individual ability, and the measures needed to be compared to one another. Results: Following two rounds of identification and screening, 126 articles were included for full analysis. Central auditory processing (CAP) measures were grouped into categories (behavioral: speech in noise, altered speech, temporal processing, binaural processing; electrophysiologic: mismatch negativity, P50, N200, P200, and P300). The most common CAP measures were sentence recognition in speech-shaped noise and the P300. Cognitive abilities were grouped into constructs, and the most common construct was working memory. The findings were mixed, encompassing both significant and nonsignificant relationships; therefore, the results do not conclusively establish a direct link between CAP and cognitive abilities. Nonetheless, several consistent relationships emerged across different domains. Distorted or noisy speech was related to working memory or processing speed. Auditory temporal order tasks showed significant relationships with working memory, fluid intelligence, or multidomain cognitive measures. For electrophysiology, relationships were observed between some cortical evoked potentials and working memory or executive/inhibitory processes. Significant results were consistent with the hypothesis that assessments of CAP and cognitive processing would be positively correlated. Conclusions: Results from this systematic review summarize relationships between CAP and cognitive processing, but also underscore the complexity of these constructs, the importance of study design, and the need to select an appropriate measure. The relationship between auditory and cognitive abilities is complex but can provide informative context when creating clinical management plans. This review supports a need to develop guidelines and training for audiologists who wish to consider individual central auditory and cognitive abilities in patient care. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24855174

Purpose: Hearing aids are the primary method to manage hearing loss. However, there are limited recommendations for when and how to set advanced hearing aid features. The purpose of this study is to describe how hearing aid features are utilized in clinically fit devices and to evaluate the relationship between the fitted hearing aid feature and the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test (QuickSIN). Method: Data from two laboratories were evaluated retrospectively, resulting in 107 bilateral hearing aid participants who obtained their hearing aids at clinics in their communities. Ages ranged from 60 to 93 years. Degree of speech-in-noise difficulty was evaluated using the QuickSIN (mild, moderate, or severe). Settings for directionality, digital noise reduction (DNR), and hearing assistive technology (HAT) use were documented. Directionality was categorized as omnidirectional, fixed (full-time directional), or adaptive (adjusts automatically based on noise source). DNR was recorded as either on or off. HAT use was recorded as either yes or no. Results: QuickSIN scores ranged from −1.5 to 25 dB SNR loss ( M = 7). A moderate correlation was determined for QuickSIN scores and pure-tone averages. Adaptive directionality was used most often, most participants had DNR turned on, and HAT use was low. The biggest contributions to the Chi-square test for directionality and degrees of speech-in-noise difficulty together were fixed/severe, fixed/moderate, and adaptive/mild. Conclusions: In this clinical sample, there was limited HAT use and advanced features are not set in a way that is consistent with speech-in-noise abilities. It is likely that patients fit with noise management that is not suited to their listening abilities are experiencing increased difficulties in challenging listening environments that could potentially be mitigated with alternative management. Evidence-based research on prefitting measures of speech in noise to help inform patient-centered clinical decisions is needed.

Hearing difficulties are frequently reported by patients in audiology clinics, including patients with normal audiometric thresholds. However, because all individuals experience some difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments, it can be difficult to assess hearing complaints objectively across patients. Normative values help address this issue by providing an objective cutoff score for determining what is or is not clinically significant. The goal of this study was to establish normative values for the four-item hearing subscale of the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey (THS-H). Respondents completing the THS-H rate the level of difficulty understanding speech in the situations most commonly reported as being difficult: in the presence of noise, on TV or in movies, soft voices and group conversations. In this study, 22,583 US Service Members (SMs) completed the THS-H using an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (not a problem) to 10 (a very big problem). Responses to the four items were summed to produce values between 0 and 40. The distribution of the final scores was analyzed based on severity of hearing loss, age, and sex. Only 5% of SMs with clinically normal hearing scored above 27, so this score was selected as a cutoff for “clinically significant hearing problems.” Due to its ease of administration and interpretation, the THS-H could be a useful tool for identifying patients with subjective hearing difficulty warranting audiological evaluation and management.

Purpose: The Masking Level Difference (MLD) has been used for decades to evaluate the binaural listening advantage. Although originally measured using Bekesy audiometry, the most common clinical use of the MLD is the CD-based Wilson 500-Hz technique with interleaved N0S0 and N0S pi components. Here, we propose an alternative technique based on manual audiometry as a faster way of measuring the MLD. The article describes the advantages to this administration technique and evaluates if it is a viable alternative for the Wilson technique.Method: Data were retrospectively analyzed on 264 service members (SMs). All SMs completed both the Wilson and Manual MLDs. Descriptive and correlational statistics were applied to evaluate the comparisons between the two techniques and highlight the differences. Equivalence measures were also completed to compare the tests using a standardized cutoff score. Analyses were also made to compare both techniques to subjective and objective measures of hearing performance.Results: Moderate to high positive correlations were determined between Wilson and Manual measures of each threshold (N0S pi and N0S0). Although the Manual and Wilson MLD techniques produced significantly different thresholds, simple linear transformations can be used to obtain approximately equivalent scores on the two tests, and agreement was high for using these transformed scores to identify individuals with substantial MLD deficits. Both techniques had moderate test-retest reliability. The Manual MLD and components had stronger correlations to the subjective and objective hearing measures than the Wilson.Conclusions: The Manual technique is a faster method for obtaining MLD scores that is just as reliable as the CD-based Wilson test. With the significant reduction in assessment time and comparable results, the Manual MLD is a viable alternative for direct use in the clinic.

Purpose: In this article, we describe the problems that patients and audiologists face today during the COVID-19 pandemic when accessing and delivering hearing health care. Additionally, we introduce a proactive rehabilitative counseling approach to hearing aid follow-up care now and how it may continue in future practice.Method: Combining current literature, clinical practice, and results from a recent dissertation study, decision trees were created to guide patient engagement and prioritize follow-up care.Results: The central focus is on patient-centered communication needs and self-efficacy. The benchmark for the Measure of Audiologic Rehabilitation Self-Efficacy for Hearing Aids questionnaire is set at an 80% composite score, with further interpretation of subscales to identify the format and focus of subsequent clinical interactions. Follow-up care can be delivered remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and in hybrid formats combining remote and in-person services in the future.Conclusions: Audiology follow-up appointments may be elective, but patients are still in need of clinician interaction to help mitigate social isolation. We suggest that audiologists reach out to proactively manage communication needs of patients through increased access to rehabilitative audiology.