Transducer Variability in Speech-in-Noise Testing: Considerations Related to Stimulus Bandwidth.

PURPOSE: Clinical audiologists typically assume that headphones and insert phones will produce comparable results when they are used to conduct speech-in-noise or other audiological tests; however, this may not always be the case. Here, we show that there are significant differences in the scores that previous studies have reported for headphone and insert-phone transducers on the Words-in-Noise (WIN) Test, and discuss the possibility that the variations in high-frequency output that are allowable under the speech source specifications of American National Standards Institute S3.6 might be contributing to transducer-dependent differences in performance for the WIN and other tests that are presented through the auxiliary input channels of clinical audiometers. METHOD: A literature review was conducted to identify articles that reported WIN Test results for both listeners with normal hearing and with hearing impairment and specified the type of transducer (insert or TDH-50) used for the data collection. RESULTS: Among the 19 included studies, participants with normal hearing using inserts exhibited systematically worse WIN Test scores compared to those using TDH-50 headphones, while participants with hearing loss showed comparable average scores across transducer types. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the importance of considering transducer type when interpreting WIN Test outcomes, particularly when comparing to normative scores obtained from individuals with normal hearing. Although further research is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms driving differences in test performance across transducer types, these findings underscore the need for standardized test administration protocols and careful documentation of transducer type when administering speech-in-noise tests for clinical or research applications.

Examining the Use and Benefits of Low-/Mild-Gain Hearing Aids in Service Members with Normal Hearing Thresholds and Self-Reported Hearing Difficulties.

Low- (or mild-) gain hearing aids (LGHAs) are increasingly considered for individuals with normal peripheral hearing but significant self-reported hearing difficulties (SHDs). This study assesses the benefits of LGHAs as a management option for individuals with normal hearing thresholds (NHTs) and SHDs, comparing LGHA use and benefit to individuals with non-significant hearing difficulties (NHDs) and those with peripheral hearing loss. Questionnaires addressing hearing aid usage, benefit, hearing difficulties, and tinnitus were administered to 186 individuals who self-identified as hearing aid users in a sample of 6652 service members who were receiving their annual hearing tests. Participants were divided into SHD and NHD groups based on the normative cutoff of the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey-Hearing Subscale (THS-H), and into hearing impairment (HI) and NHT based on their audiometric air-conduction thresholds. Individuals with SHDs and NHTs reported higher LGHA usage and benefit than individuals with NHDs and NHTs. Comparable use and benefit were noted between groups with SHDs regardless of peripheral hearing loss status. The findings support LGHAs as a suitable management option for individuals with NHTs and SHDs, as indicated by hearing aid use and benefit. Quantifying the level of perceived auditory processing deficits (i.e., SHDs), notably with the THS-H, enhances sensitivity in identifying those who may benefit the most from this treatment option.

Auditory Hallucinations: An Audiological Horizon?

BACKGROUND: Interesting data and theories have emerged regarding auditory hallucinations (AHs) in patients with schizophrenia. The possibility that these patients may have changes in the anatomy of the auditory cortex and/or subcortical structures of the central auditory nervous system and present with deficits on audiological tests is important information to the audiology community. However, it seems clear that, in general, audiologists are not sufficiently aware of these findings. PURPOSE: There are two main purposes of this article: (1) to educate audiologists about AHs related to schizophrenia and related issues, and (2) to encourage audiologists and hearing scientists to become involved in the evaluation and research of AHs. This fascinating disorder is one in which audiologists/hearing scientists are well suited to make a significant contribution. RESEARCH DESIGN: A review and synthesis of the literature was conducted. Relevant literature was identified through PubMed, Google Scholar, as well as independent book chapters and article searches. Keywords driving the searches were AHs, auditory illusions, verbal and musical hallucinations, schizophrenia, and central auditory disorders. Given the currency of the topic, the information collected was primarily between 1990 and 2020. STUDY SAMPLE: The review is organized around categorization, prevalence, models, mechanisms, anatomy, pathophysiology, and audiological correlates related to AHs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Searches were conducted using well-known search engines and manual searches by each author. This information on AHs was then analyzed collectively by the authors for useful background and relevance, as well as important for the field of audiology. RESULTS: Several anatomical, physiological, and functional imaging studies have shown compromise of the auditory cortex in those with schizophrenia and AHs. Potentially related to this, are studies that demonstrated sub-par performance on behavioral audiologic measures for this unique clinical population. These findings align well with the kind of hearing disorder for which audiologists are well-trained to make significant contributions. CONCLUSION: Neurobiological and audiological evidence is accumulating on patients with schizophrenia and AH potentially rendering it as both an auditory and psychiatric disorder. Audiologists should consider expanding their horizon and playing a role in the clinical investigation of this disorder.