Reported Hearing Outcome Measures Following Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Vestibular Schwannoma: A Scoping Review.

Background Evidence on hearing outcome measures when assessing hearing preservation following stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for adults with vestibular schwannoma (VS) has not previously been collated in a structured review. Objective The objective of the present study was to perform a scoping review of the evidence regarding the choice of hearing outcomes and other methodological characteristics following SRS for adults with VS. Methods The protocol was registered in the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension guidelines for scoping reviews. A systematic search of five online databases revealed 1,591 studies, 247 of which met the inclusion criteria. Results The majority of studies ( n = 213, 86%) were retrospective cohort or case series with the remainder ( n = 34, 14%) prospective cohort. Pure-tone audiometry and speech intelligibility were included in 222 (90%) and 158 (64%) studies, respectively, often summarized within a classification scheme and lacking procedural details. Fifty-nine (24%) studies included self-report measures. The median duration of follow-up, when reported, was 43 months (interquartile range: 29, 4-150). Conclusion Evidence on hearing disability after SRS for VS is based on low-quality studies which are inherently susceptible to bias. This review has highlighted an urgent need for a randomized controlled trial assessing hearing outcomes in patients with VS managed with radiosurgery or radiological observation. Similarly, consensus and coproduction of a core outcome set to determine relevant hearing and communication outcome domains is required. This will ensure that patient priorities, including communication abilities in the presence of background noise and reduced participation restrictions, are addressed.

Divergent effects of listening demands and evaluative threat on listening effort in online and laboratory settings.

Objective: Listening effort (LE) varies as a function of listening demands, motivation and resource availability, among other things. Motivation is posited to have a greater influence on listening effort under high, compared to low, listening demands. Methods: To test this prediction, we manipulated the listening demands of a speech recognition task using tone vocoders to create moderate and high listening demand conditions. We manipulated motivation using evaluative threat, i.e., informing participants that they must reach a particular "score" for their results to be usable. Resource availability was assessed by means of working memory span and included as a fixed effects predictor. Outcome measures were indices of LE, including reaction times (RTs), self-rated work and self-rated tiredness, in addition to task performance (correct response rates). Given the recent popularity of online studies, we also wanted to examine the effect of experimental context (online vs. laboratory) on the efficacy of manipulations of listening demands and motivation. We carried out two highly similar experiments with two groups of 37 young adults, a laboratory experiment and an online experiment. To make listening demands comparable between the two studies, vocoder settings had to differ. All results were analysed using linear mixed models. Results: Results showed that under laboratory conditions, listening demands affected all outcomes, with significantly lower correct response rates, slower RTs and greater self-rated work with higher listening demands. In the online study, listening demands only affected RTs. In addition, motivation affected self-rated work. Resource availability was only a significant predictor for RTs in the online study. Discussion: These results show that the influence of motivation and listening demands on LE depends on the type of outcome measures used and the experimental context. It may also depend on the exact vocoder settings. A controlled laboratory settings and/or particular vocoder settings may be necessary to observe all expected effects of listening demands and motivation.

Hearing Loss and Dementia: Where to From Here?

Victorian era psychologists were the first to comment on associations between sensory and cognitive function. More recently, hearing loss has been shown as a marker of risk for dementia. However, it is not known whether this association represents a causal impact of hearing loss, nor whether treating hearing loss may help prevent dementia. Most studies on relationships between hearing loss and cognitive outcomes are observational, are at risk of confounding, and cannot reach conclusions about causation. A recent high quality randomized controlled trial, relatively uncommon in audiology, reported no impact of a comprehensive hearing intervention in mitigating cognitive decline in older adults. Although secondary analysis revealed potential benefits in a sub-sample of adults, this finding may be spurious. Encouraging policymakers, patients, and other health care practitioners to address hearing loss in terms of dementia prevention may be inappropriate on the grounds of both relevance at individual level and lack of clear evidence of benefit. In addition, advocating need to address hearing loss in terms of mitigating dementia risk may reduce the importance of addressing hearing loss in its own right. Linking hearing loss to dementia risk may also exacerbate the stigma of hearing loss, inadvertently discouraging people from seeking help for hearing. We suggest that treating hearing loss may have important benefits in preventing or delaying diagnosis of dementia via improving orientation and functioning in daily life, without changing the underlying pathology. Rather than linking hearing loss to dementia risk, we suggest a positive message focusing on the known benefits of addressing hearing loss in terms of improved communication, quality of life, and healthy aging.

Reporting of auditory symptoms over time: (in)consistencies, expectations and the nocebo effect.

Objective: Consistent symptom reporting for conditions like tinnitus that do not have an associated sign is critical for evaluating severity and intervention effectiveness, and for interpreting research findings. There is little research examining reporting of tinnitus and hearing difficulty over time. We address this here by comparing reported hearing difficulty and tinnitus at two time-points.Design: A cross-sectional study comparing symptom reporting in March 2019 and August/September 2021 using data from two online surveys of the same cohort. Although each survey was designed to address a different question, both asked about symptoms of tinnitus and hearing difficulties and enabled this exploratory analysis.Study sample: 6881 members of the UK general public aged 18+ years.Results: Inconsistent reporting was evident - many participants who reported experiencing tinnitus and/or hearing difficulties in 2019, said in 2021 that they had never had such symptoms before. Additionally, reports of new tinnitus/hearing difficulties in 2021 were unexpectedly high, equating to 18-month incidence rates of 13.6% and 11.7%, respectively.Conclusions: Psychosocial factors, expectations and context impact symptom reporting. This should be considered when treating patients and interpreting research findings. Using real-time data collection methods could thus provide a better understanding of experiences of tinnitus and hearing.

Acoustic reflexes: should we be paying more attention?

OBJECTIVE: The clinical audiology test battery often involves playing physically simple sounds with questionable ecological value to the listener. In this technical report, we revisit how valid this approach is using an automated, involuntary auditory response; the acoustic reflex threshold (ART). DESIGN: The ART was estimated four times in each individual in a quasi-random ordering of task conditions. The baseline condition (referred to as Neutral) measured the ART following a standard clinical practice. Three experimental conditions were then used in which a secondary task was performed whilst the reflex was measured: auditory attention, auditory distraction and visual distraction tasks. STUDY SAMPLE: Thirty-eight participants (27 males) with a mean age of 23 years were tested. All participants were audiometrically healthy. RESULTS: The ART was elevated when a visual task was performed at the same time as the measurements were taken. Performing an auditory task did not affect the ART. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that simple audiometric measures widely used in the clinic, can be affected by central, non-auditory processes even in healthy, normal-hearing volunteers. The role of cognition and attention on auditory responses will become ever more important in the coming years.

Cultural competence in NHS hearing aid clinics: a mixed-methods case study of services for Deaf British sign language users in the UK.

BACKGROUND: This study identified and explored how National Health Service (NHS) hearing aid clinics address cultural competence concerning Deaf British Sign Language (BSL) users. This was approached by (i) investigating how organisational processes meet the needs of Deaf signers from a hospital and hearing aid clinic perspective, (ii) analysing policies and guidelines to investigate if they equip practitioners to meet the needs of Deaf signers and (iii) exploring with practitioners who work in hearing aid clinics about their experiences of working with Deaf signers. METHODS: This study utilised a mixed-methods multiple case study design, incorporating documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews. Interview analysis was conducted using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA). The research encompassed two hearing aid clinics in separate hospitals, producing 19 documents and eight interviews (four at each site) with audiologists ensuring a representative mix of professional experience levels. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the integrated analysis: (1) Understanding Deaf signers; (2) Communicating with Deaf signers; (3) Barriers and Facilitators and (4) Service improvement. A noticeable gap in understanding BSL as both a language and a cultural system was apparent across various policies, strategies, training programmes and staff expertise. Over-reliance on interpreters provided a false sense of accessibility and most participants felt tentative to engage directly with Deaf signers. Positive practices observed at Sites A and B encompassed accurate identification of patients as Deaf signers, improved interpreter availability, communication methods, enhanced training and the encouragement of professional self-awareness. CONCLUSION: This is the first study that explores cultural competence of hearing aid clinics and its staff concerning Deaf signers in the UK. The results show both clinics require development to become an effective provider for culturally Deaf signers. Examples of how to design culturally competent practices have been provided to assist hearing aid clinics. The findings may be applicable to other underrepresented groups who are not typical users of conventional, acoustic hearing aids provided by the NHS.

Listening Preferences of New Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Registered, Double-Blind, Randomized, Mixed-Methods Clinical Trial of Initial Versus Real-Ear Fit.

Hearing aid verification with real-ear measurement (REM) is recommended in clinical practice. Improvements, over time, in accuracy of manufacturers' initial fit mean the benefit of routine REM for new adult users is unclear. This registered, double-blinded, randomized, mixed-methods clinical trial aimed to (i) determine whether new adult hearing aid users prefer initial or real-ear fit and (ii) investigate the reasons for preferences. New adult hearing aid users (n = 45) were each fitted with two programs: the initial fit and real-ear fit, both with adjustments based on immediate feedback from the patient. Participants were asked to complete daily paired-comparisons of the two programs with a magnitude estimation of the preference, one for each of clarity/comfort in quiet/noise as well as overall preference. The results revealed gain adjustment requests were low in number and small in magnitude. Deviation from NAL-NL2 targets (after adjustment for a 65 dB SPL input) was close to zero, except at high frequencies where real-ear fits were around 3 dB closer to target. There was no difference in clarity ratings between programs, but comfort ratings favored initial fit. Overall, 10 participants (22%) expressed a preference for real-ear fit. Reasons for preference were primarily based on comfort with the initial fit and clarity with real-ear fit. It may be acceptable to fit new adult users with mild-to-moderate hearing loss without the need for REMs, if the primary outcome of interest is user preference. It remains to be seen if the findings generalize to other fitting software, other outcome measures and more severe hearing loss.

Insights into perceived listening difficulties post COVID-19 infection: no measurable hearing difficulty on clinical tests despite increased self-reported listening effort.

Objective: The aim was to use a battery of clinic-based auditory assessment procedures to compare participants with and without self-reported hearing difficulties following a confirmed COVID-19 infection. A further aim was to compare the groups on self-reported measures of listening effort and fatigue. Methods: There were 25 participants in each group (age range 20-59 years, 80% females). Participants were recruited after a minimum of 4 weeks of testing positive. Hearing assessment involved tympanometry, acoustic reflex thresholds, pure-tone audiometry (PTA; 0.25-14 kHz), and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs; 0.5-10 kHz). Listening effort was assessed using the Arabic version of the Effort Assessment Scale (EAS-A) and fatigue was assessed using the Arabic version of the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS-A). Results: There was no difference between groups on any measure except for greater self-reported listening effort in the perceived hearing difficulty group (p = 0.01). Conclusion: The only difference between groups was self-reported listening effort. This could be due to a subclinical auditory deficit following COVID-19, increased listening effort due to the impact of COVID-19 on cognitive processes, or a psychosomatic response/health anxiety.

Aided Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Infants With Frequency-Specific Synthetic Speech Stimuli: Sensitivity, Repeatability, and Feasibility.

OBJECTIVES: The cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) test is a candidate for supplementing clinical practice for infant hearing aid users and others who are not developmentally ready for behavioral testing. Sensitivity of the test for given sensation levels (SLs) has been reported to some degree, but further data are needed from large numbers of infants within the target age range, including repeat data where CAEPs were not detected initially. This study aims to assess sensitivity, repeatability, acceptability, and feasibility of CAEPs as a clinical measure of aided audibility in infants. DESIGN: One hundred and three infant hearing aid users were recruited from 53 pediatric audiology centers across the UK. Infants underwent aided CAEP testing at age 3 to 7 months to a mid-frequency (MF) and (mid-)high-frequency (HF) synthetic speech stimulus. CAEP testing was repeated within 7 days. When developmentally ready (aged 7-21 months), the infants underwent aided behavioral hearing testing using the same stimuli, to estimate the decibel (dB) SL (i.e., level above threshold) of those stimuli when presented at the CAEP test sessions. Percentage of CAEP detections for different dB SLs are reported using an objective detection method (Hotellings T 2 ). Acceptability was assessed using caregiver interviews and a questionnaire, and feasibility by recording test duration and completion rate. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity for a single CAEP test when the stimuli were ≥0 dB SL (i.e., audible) was 70% for the MF stimulus and 54% for the HF stimulus. After repeat testing, this increased to 84% and 72%, respectively. For SL >10 dB, the respective MF and HF test sensitivities were 80% and 60% for a single test, increasing to 94% and 79% for the two tests combined. Clinical feasibility was demonstrated by an excellent >99% completion rate, and acceptable median test duration of 24 minutes, including preparation time. Caregivers reported overall positive experiences of the test. CONCLUSIONS: By addressing the clinical need to provide data in the target age group at different SLs, we have demonstrated that aided CAEP testing can supplement existing clinical practice when infants with hearing loss are not developmentally ready for traditional behavioral assessment. Repeat testing is valuable to increase test sensitivity. For clinical application, it is important to be aware of CAEP response variability in this age group.

Can the capabilities, opportunities and motivations model predict health behavior 1 year later?

OBJECTIVE: The capabilities (C), opportunities (O) and motivations (M) model of behavior (B) change (COM-B) is designed to capture the key features of numerous models of behavior change, but little is known about its predictive validity. The present study tests the predictive validity of COM-B prospectively in the domain of attending hearing screening. METHOD: 6,000 adults, representative of the U.K. population (e.g., 52.6% women) who one year earlier had reported COM with respect to attending hearing screening, were contacted again to complete an online survey with respect to their actual attendance. Data were analyzed descriptively, and with logistic regression to examine the influence of sociodemographic variables and COM on attendance at hearing screening. RESULTS: Respondents reported being highly capable of attending hearing screening (Ms > 7.98 on a 0-10 scale), but much lower levels of automatic (M = 4.21 on a 0-10 scale) and reflective (M = 5.21 on a 0-10 scale) motivations. Logistic regression analyses showed that men and older people were more likely to have their hearing checked but that hearing difficulty was the dominant determinant of attending hearing screening. Controlling for these sociodemographic and clinical variables, opportunities and motivations (but not capabilities) were also significantly associated with behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The COM-B model was predictive of attending hearing screening over a one-year period, which potentially makes it valuable for understanding health behavior change. Interventions for improving uptake in hearing screening that goes beyond increasing knowledge and skills (capabilities) are required to increase attendance at hearing screening. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The NLRP3 inflammasome as a target for sensorineural hearing loss.

Sensorineural hearing loss is the most common type of hearing loss in adults and occurs due to damage of the inner ear caused by a range of factors including ageing, excessive noise, toxins, and cancer. Auto-inflammatory disease is also a cause of hearing loss and there is evidence that inflammation could contribute to hearing loss in other conditions. Within the inner ear there are resident macrophage cells that respond to insults and whose activation correlates with damage. The NLRP3 inflammasome is a multi-molecular pro-inflammatory protein complex that forms in activated macrophages and may contribute to hearing loss. The aim of this article is to discuss the evidence for the NLRP3 inflammasome and associated cytokines as potential therapeutic targets for sensorineural hearing loss in conditions ranging from auto-inflammatory disease to tumour-induced hearing loss in vestibular schwannoma.

Establishing the reliability and the validity of the Arabic translated versions of the Effort Assessment Scale and the Fatigue Assessment Scale.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to establish the reliability and the validity of Arabic translated versions of the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) and the Effort Assessment Scale (EAS). DESIGN: The FAS and the EAS were translated from the original English following a recommended six-step approach for translating hearing-related questionnaires for different languages. The reliability of the scales was investigated using Cronbach's alpha, item-total correlation, and inter-item correlation. Construct validity was investigated using factor analysis and the hypothesis testing method. STUDY SAMPLE: The translated scales were completed by 146 participants from Jordan and Saudi Arabia (age range 19-86 years old, 39% male). Participants' hearing level ranged from normal to profound. RESULTS: Item 3 in the translated FAS was removed to improve the scale's construct validity. The translated version of the EAS was found to be as reliable and valid as the original EAS. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of standardised versions of the FAS and the EAS provides a quick and easy method for improving hearing rehabilitation in Arabic-speaking countries where audiology services can often be costly and not necessarily accessible to all individuals.

Web- and app-based tools for remote hearing assessment: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Remote hearing screening and assessment may improve access to, and uptake of, hearing care. This review, the most comprehensive to date, aimed to (i) identify and assess functionality of remote hearing assessment tools on smartphones and online platforms, (ii) determine if assessed tools were also evaluated in peer-reviewed publications and (iii) report accuracy of existing validation data. DESIGN: Protocol was registered in INPLASY and reported according to PRISMA-Extension for Scoping Reviews. STUDY SAMPLE: In total, 187 remote hearing assessment tools (using tones, speech, self-report or a combination) and 101 validation studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality, functionality, bias and applicability of each app were assessed by at least two authors. RESULTS: Assessed tools showed considerable variability in functionality. Twenty-two (12%) tools were peer-reviewed and 14 had acceptable functionality. The validation results and their quality varied greatly, largely depending on the category of the tool. CONCLUSION: The accuracy and reliability of most tools are unknown. Tone-producing tools provide approximate hearing thresholds but have calibration and background noise issues. Speech and self-report tools are less affected by these issues but mostly do not provide an estimated pure tone audiogram. Predicting audiograms using filtered language-independent materials could be a universal solution.

Do we need audiogram-based prescriptions? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Hearing aids are typically programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds and verified using real-ear measures. Developments in technology have resulted in a new category of direct-to-consumer devices, which are not necessarily programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds. This review aimed to identify whether programming hearing aids using the individual's validated audiogram-based prescription, and verified using real-ear measures, results in better outcomes for adults with hearing loss. DESIGN: The review was registered in PROSPERO and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. STUDY SAMPLE: After screening more than 1370 records, seven experimental studies met the eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Studies were categorised under three methods of fitting: (i) comparative fitting evaluating different settings based on the beliefs of the audiologist; (ii) client choice of preset responses; and (iii) self-fit by adjustment. The findings suggest that using a prescription based on the individual's audiogram improves outcomes relative to the comparative and client choice fitting approaches. Self-adjustment during daily use may produce equivalent (or better) outcomes than an audiogram-based prescription. The quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality studies on which to make evidence-based decisions on hearing aid fitting methods.

Patient and public involvement in hearing research: opportunities, impact and reflections with case studies from the Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness.

OBJECTIVE: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research improves relevance to end users and improves processes including recruitment participants. PPI in our research has gone from being non-existent to ubiquitous over a few years. We provide critical reflections on the benefits and challenges of PPI. DESIGN: Case studies are reported according to a modified GRIP2 framework; the aims, methodology, impact of PPI and critical reflections on each case and our experiences with PPI in general. STUDY SAMPLE: We report five UK projects that included PPI from teenagers, families, people living with dementia, autistic people, and people from South Asian and d/Deaf communities. RESULTS: Our experience has progressed from understanding the rationale to grappling methodologies and integrating PPI in our research. PPI took place at all stages of research, although commonly involved input to design including recruitment and development of study materials. Methodologies varied between projects, including PPI co-investigators, advisory panels and online surveys. CONCLUSION: On-going challenges include addressing social exclusion from research for people that lack digital access following increasing on-line PPI and involvement from underserved communities. PPI was initially motivated by funders; however the benefits have driven widespread PPI, ensuring our research is relevant to people living with hearing loss.

Deaf signers and hearing aids: motivations, access, competency and service effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: This study concerns culturally Deaf signers in the UK who use hearing aids and (i) explores motivations for hearing aid use (ii) identifies barriers and facilitators to accessing NHS hearing aid services, (iii) examines cultural competency of hearing aid clinics and (iv) identifies factors influencing effective adult hearing aid service provision. DESIGN: Online survey in British Sign Language and English that was informed by Deaf service users. STUDY SAMPLE: 75 Deaf adult BSL users who wear hearing aids and use NHS hearing aid clinics. RESULTS: No specific reason emerged as outstandingly important for hearing aid use; however, assisting with lipreading (57%) and listening to music (52%) were rated as very/extremely important. Access issues reported were contacting clinics, poor communication with staff and lack of Deaf awareness. To be an effective and culturally competent hearing aid clinic for Deaf signers, a good understanding of Deaf culture and language was most rated as important (87%). CONCLUSION: The study is the first that explores hearing aid use and experiences of accessing hearing aid clinics from Deaf signers' perspectives. Enhancements to clinical practice are required to consider culturally Deaf people's motivations for hearing aid use and make services more BSL-friendly.

Shedding Light on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccination, and Auditory Symptoms: Causality or Spurious Conjunction?

There are reports of associations between SARS-CoV2, COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, and auditory symptoms (hearing difficulty, tinnitus). However, most studies have relied on self-report and lack baseline and/or non-COVID control groups. This makes it problematic to differentiate if symptoms are associated with SARS-CoV2, COVID-19, the vaccine, psychosocial factors or recall bias. In this study, we differentiate these by comparing hearing and tinnitus survey data collected pre- and during the pandemic. The survey conducted during the pandemic asked about the onset and change in three types of symptom. Type One-known association (loss of smell, memory/concentration issues, persistent fatigue), Type Two-indeterminate association (auditory symptoms), and Type Three-no established association with COVID-19 (toothache). We hypothesized that if auditory symptoms are directly associated with COVID-19, their onset and change would be similar to Type One symptoms, but if indirectly associated (reflecting psychosocial factors and/or recall bias) would be more similar to Type Three symptoms. Of the 6,881 individuals who responded, 6% reported confirmed COVID-19 (positive test), 11% probably had COVID-19, and 83% reported no COVID-19. Those with confirmed or probable COVID-19 more commonly reported new and/or worsened auditory symptoms than those not reporting COVID-19. However, this does not imply causality because: (1) new auditory symptoms coincided with COVID-19 illness among just 1/3 of those with confirmed or probable COVID-19, and another 1/3 said their symptoms started before the pandemic-despite reporting no symptoms in the pre-pandemic survey. (2) >60% of individuals who had COVID-19 said it had affected their Type 3 symptoms, despite a lack of evidence linking the two. (3) Those with confirmed COVID-19 reported more Type 1 symptoms, but reporting of Type 2 and Type 3 symptoms did not differ between those with confirmed COVID-19 and those without COVID-19, while those who probably had COVID-19 most commonly reported these symptom types. Despite more reports of auditory symptoms in confirmed or probable COVID-19, there is inconsistent reporting, recall bias, and possible nocebo effects. Studies that include appropriate control groups and use audiometric measures in addition to self-report to investigate change in auditory symptoms relative to pre-COVID-19 are urgently needed.