Background A standard method and parameter study were performed for the contralateral suppression test. Purpose Our study aimed to determine the contralateral transient-evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) suppression test method and stimulus‐noise parameters that have a standard procedure and will enable the efferent system to be easily evaluated in clinics. Research Design: This study was conducted in two parts with two different groups of participants as a within-subjects design. In the first part, the signal-to-noise ratio at which maximum suppression obtained was investigated with 29 participants. In the second part, the optimal contralateral noise presentation method (in terms of noise-time or noise-sweep) was examined with 21 participants. Study Sample In the first part 29 young adults aged between 18 and 32 (23.03 ± 2.84), 20 females and 9 males, and in the second part 21 young adults aged between 19 and 34 years (mean age: 23.71 ± 3.48 years), 16 females and 5 males, participated in the second part. All participants had normal hearing. Data Collection and Analysis To obtain maximum OAE suppression, different parameters were tested with the Otodynamics ILO292-II OAE device at both parts of the study in a double-walled audiometric test booths. Multirepeated analysis of variance, pairwise comparison, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for statistical analysis. Results In the first part, maximum suppression was achieved at 65 dB peSPL (decibel peak-equivalent sound pressure level) TEOAE stimulus and 65 dB SPL broadband noise. In the second part, maximum suppression was obtained in noise-time method with 30 seconds “duration.” Conclusions To provide standardization in clinics, it can be recommended that the contralateral suppression of OAEs was measured at 65 dB peSPL TEOAE stimulus and 65 dB SPL broadband noise in the linear stimulation mode with Otodynamics ILO 292-II double-probe OAE device. To obtain maximum suppression, the noise-time method with 30 seconds duration can be used.

Background: Telemedicine is a method of providing remote healthcare services and consultations to patients using communication technology. Tele-audiology is a sub-branch of telemedicine. It refers to providing audiology services using telehealth strategies. This study aims to compare the satisfaction of patients who come to the hearing aid center and receive device fitting service and patients who have hearing aid fitting using tele-audiology service. For this purpose, hearing aid users were divided into two groups. The study group consisted of 17 participants (10 male, 7 females; mean age 65.17 ± 13.88) who continued fitting appointments remotely after the first clinic application, while the control group consisted of 23 participants (10 males, 13 females; mean age 62.17 ± 18.32) who had all hearing aid fittings performed face-to-face in the clinic. The participant’s satisfaction was assessed with The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids Turkiye (IOI-HA-TR) questionnaire because it is practical and can be administered over the phone. Results: There were no significant differences in hearing aid satisfaction between those who came to the hearing center and filled out the IOI-HA-TR questionnaire personally and those who completed it through the Remote Care application (p < 0.05). In addition, most of the participants stated that using Remote Care solved their problems (35% very good, 24% good) and they were satisfied with the fitting of their hearing aids with this application (35% good, 29% very good). In addition, 13 out of 17 participants stated that they would pay attention to the “remote fitting” feature when purchasing a new hearing aid (76% very good). Moreover, they would like to continue the fitting using the Remote Care application (65% yes). Conclusion: Remote fitting technology via smartphone applications can facilitate the lives of hearing aid users and improve their quality of life in cases of risky conditions such as pandemics, various diseases, and physical limitations.

Introduction The bone-anchored hearing implant system (BAHS) is an effective amplification system that transmits the sounds received by an external operating system to the inner ear by bypassing the middle ear placed in the temporal bone. Objective This study compares the results of patients who underwent bone-anchored hearing implant system (BAHS) surgery using two different surgical methods in terms of preoperative and postoperative complications, surgical time, audiological findings, and patient satisfaction. Methods The results of 22 patients who underwent BAHS were evaluated retrospectively from video records and audiological results, The Turkish Version of the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) questionnaire were evaluated. Two different surgical approaches were used for implantation: the linear incision technique (n = 9) and the punch technique (n = 13). Results Mean surgical durations were 9.67 ± 2.85 and 47.65 ± 6.13 minutes for Groups A and B, respectively, and these were significantly different (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups' speech recognition scores for a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of +5 (p = 0.173), SNR of 0 (p = 0.315), or SNR of -5 (p = 0.360) and results of the GBI scores. Conclusion The punch technique has a significant advantage due to a shorter surgery duration without increased surgical complications. Additionally, the punch technique showed no significant difference in hearing performance or satisfaction compared with linear incision.

Background This study evaluated the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the cochlea and auditory efferent system with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and contralateral suppression (CS). Objective We aimed to evaluate the pre- and post-COVID-19 TEOAE and CS results in the same participants to reveal the effect of COVID-19 on the efferent auditory system. Study Design The CS measurement was performed twice for each participant before a diagnosis of COVID-19 and after treatment for COVID-19 as a within-subjects study design. All participants exhibited hearing thresholds below 25 dB HL at all frequencies and all participants demonstrated bilateral Type A tympanograms. The tests were performed in the linear mode using a double probe on the Otodynamics ILO292-II device. The CS of the otoacoustic emissions was measured at 65 dB peSPL TEOAE stimulus and 65 dB SPL broadband noise. All parameters including reproducibility, noise, and stability were considered during the measurements. Study Samples The study included 11 patients (eight females and three males) aged between 20 and 35 years (mean age, 26 ± 3.66). Data Collection and Analysis Wilcoxon signed rank test and Spearman's correlation test were used for statistical analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 23.0. Results The Wilcoxon signed rank test showed that there was no significant difference between the pre-and post-COVID-19 TEOAE CS results in all tested frequencies and measurement parameters, 1000 to 4000 Hz, Z = −0.356, −0.089, −0.533, −0.533, −1.156, and p < 0.05. Although not statistically significant, the CS results obtained post-COVID-19 at all frequencies, except 4000 Hz, were lower than those before COVID-19. According to the overall TEOAE results after COVID-19, a statistically significant decrease was observed at 3000 Hz (Z = −2.847, p < 0.01) and 4000 Hz (Z = −2.401, p < 0.05) compared with the premeasurement. Conclusion The study findings show that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 can affect the cochlea and the auditory efferent system in adults. Post-COVID-19 audiological evaluation can also be considered part of a general medical examination.

Background: The purpose of the study is to establish transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) contralateral suppression (CS) standardization values for the pediatric population aged 6–12 years using recommended test parameters and a standard application protocol. After conducting basic audiological evaluation of the participants, the TEOAE-based suppression test was performed on the OAE device using dual probes. The CS testing was conducted using a previously standardized methodology and set of parameters. The study sample consisted of 28 healthy children aged 6–12 years (9.03 ± 1.75) with hearing between 0-25 dB HL, including 14 male and 14 female participants. All participants had a healthy hearing system and did not have any additional problems. Data collection and analysis involved the use of standardized test methods and parameters to obtain data. The Otodynamics ILO292-II OAE device was used to conduct the CS test with a double probe, which provided 65 dB pe SPL stimulation and 65 dB SPL noise. Statistical analysis was performed using the Shapiro-Wilk, repeated measures ANOVA, and independent sample t-test. Results: The study yielded “standard” suppression averages for children between the ages of 6–12 for the frequency bands of 1000, 1500, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz. In addition, the results obtained from children were compared with those obtained from adults. It was found that children exhibited higher suppression values at all frequencies, with the exception of 1000 Hz. Conclusion: The suppression results from the non-pathological pediatric group will be available for future suppression studies in different pathological pediatric groups.