Effects of Tinnitus Retraining Therapy with Different Colours of Sound.

BACKGROUND: In Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT) sound stimulation is conventionally performed with low-level broadband sound generators; since the patient has to receive it for many hours in a day, it is important that the sound is tolerable and agreeable to the patient. A clinical trial was undertaken to evaluate the effect of different colour sound generators on tinnitus. The colour of a sound refers to the power spectrum of the signal. The sound generators used in this study provide the option to choose the preferred or most acceptable sound among white, red and pink noise. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Changes in Tinnitus Handicap Inventory and Numeric Rating Scales were measured in 20 patients after 3 and 6 months following the fitting of ear-level multi-colour sound generators. The outcomes were compared to a similar group of 20 participants receiving the same management except through conventional white noise sound generators. Significant improvements were obtained in both groups following 3 and 6 months after fitting. No significant difference was found between the two groups using one or the other type of sound. Two thirds of the patient preferred white noise, making it the most appealing amongst the options. The rest of the patients indicated red noise as the preferred sound given that it reminded them of soothing noises like shower or rainfall. No one chose pink noise. CONCLUSIONS: TRT with different colour sound generators is effective in reducing the discomfort caused by tinnitus in normal hearing patients. Enabling the patients to choose their preferred sound after short trial periods achieved higher patient satisfaction. This practice could help tailor individualized treatment for each patient.

An electroacoustic analysis of over-the-counter hearing aids.

PURPOSE: To determine whether 11 over-the-counter (OTC) hearing devices have the flexibility to provide adequate gain and output for 3 common hearing loss configurations. METHOD: The 11 OTC hearing devices were separated into 2 price groups: a low-range group (<$100) consisting of 8 hearing devices and a midrange group ($100-$500) consisting of 3 hearing devices. Gain and output were prescribed for 3 hearing loss configurations using National Acoustic Laboratories prescriptive procedures. Low-range hearing devices were measured electroacoustically, and technical specifications were used as the source of electroacoustic information for the midrange hearing devices. RESULTS: Overall, midrange hearing devices met gain and output targets to a greater extent than did low-range devices. All low-range devices could be classified as special-purpose hearing aids with low-frequency emphasis. The low-range group had high equivalent input noise levels and potentially posed a residual hearing safety hazard. CONCLUSIONS: The low-range OTC devices were found to be electroacoustically inadequate to meet the needs of the hearing impaired. Midrange OTC hearing devices are arguably a good solution for the cost-conscious consumer who cannot afford professional audiologic rehabilitation, especially if considered an interim step in the rehabilitation process.