View Tag: ‘speech-in-noise’
The term hidden hearing loss has been used by some to refer more generically to functional deficits such as difficulty understanding speech-in-noise, tinnitus, and hyperacusis, based on the hypothesis that these functional deficits, which are “hidden behind a normal audiogram.” To avoid confusion, it is helpful to use precise language when referring to synapse loss, rather than using the term “hidden hearing loss.”
Beck and Le Goff why the most common problem experienced by people with hearing loss and people wearing traditional hearing aids is not simply that sound isn’t loud enough. The primary issue is understanding Speech-in-Noise (SIN).
Peter Stelmacovich tells us that a need for reducing the negative consequences of UHL definitely exist. Although care must be taken to ensure that the treatment option chosen is carefully selected and produces the desired functional outcome, there is no need to ignore treating UHL.
Marshall Chasin asked a few colleagues in the industry and in the clinic to provide their thoughts (some may consider these as “rants”) about what they would change if they could. These colleagues have been practicing long enough to see many changes in technology and professional service delivery and kindly offer their perspective as to what we might change, if only we could.
Although hearing aid technology has improved dramatically, some problems persist and hard to predict leading to poor hearing aid acceptance. Samira Anderson’s hypothesis is that the lack of hearing aid acceptance may be due in part to age- and hearing-related changes in the central processing of sound in the auditory nerve, brainstem, or cortex that affect the neural representation of the speech signal.
Hearing in the car is a challenging listening environment for people with hearing loss. Peter Stelmacovich provides us with some possible technological solutions.
In his last column, Peter discussed candidacy for wireless microphones. In this issue, he shares some personal strategies he uses in challenging listening situations.
A colleague recently expressed the opinion that very few of her clients are candidates for additional wireless microphone systems and the number of candidates in her opinion was likely less than 1%. Peter Stelmacovich argues that the reality is the number of potential candidates for adaptive wireless microphones could be as high as 40% and explains why.
In this issue’s From the Centre Out, the legendary Jack Katz tells us about “Three Aspects of Speech-in-Noise Training.”
Editor-in-Chief Marshall Chasin gives us a very interesting Back to Basics column with his entry “Slope of PI Function Is Not 10%-per-dB in Noise for All Noises and for All Patients.”