Background sounds and hearing-aid users: A scoping review

References

• Abrams H.B., Chisolm T.H., McManus M. & McArdle R. 2012. Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: Comparing self-perceived hearing-aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol, 23(10), 768–778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahlstrom J.B., Horwitz A.R. & Dubno J.R. 2009. Spatial benefit of bilateral hearing aids. Ear Hear, 30(2), 203–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arksey H. & O’Malley L. 2005. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol, 8(1), 19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Arlinger S. 2000. Can we establish internationally equivalent outcome measures in audiological rehabilitation? Ear Hear, 21(4 Suppl.), 97S–99S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arlinger S., Billermark E., Oberg M., Lunner T. & Hellgren J. 2007. Clinical trial of a digital hearing aid. Scand Audiol, 27(1), 51–61.
   Google Scholar
• Bentler R.A., Niebuhr D.P., Getta J.P. & Anderson C.V. 1993. Longitudinal study of hearing-aid effectiveness. II: Subjective measures. J Speech Hear Res, 36(4), 820–831.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bentler R., Wu Y.H., Kettel J. & Hurtig R. 2008. Digital noise reduction: Outcomes from laboratory and field studies. Int J Audiol, 47(8), 447–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertoli S., Staehelin K., Zemp E., Schindler C., Bodmer D. et al. 2009. Survey on hearing-aid use and satisfaction in Switzerland and their determinants. Int J Audiol, 48(4), 183–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bille M., Jensen A.M., Kjaerbøl E., Vesterager V., Sibelle P. et al. 1999. Clinical study of a digital vs. an analogue hearing aid. Scand Audiol, 28(2), 127–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blamey P.J., Fiket H.J. & Steele B.R. 2006. Improving speech intelligibility in background noise with an adaptive directional microphone. J Am Acad Audiol, 17(7), 519–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blamey P.J. & Martin L.F. 2009. Loudness and satisfaction ratings for hearing-aid users. J Am Acad Audiol, 20(4), 272–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanchfield B.B., Feldman J.J., Dunbar J.L. & Gardner E.N. 2001. The severely to profoundly hearing-impaired population in the United States: Prevalence estimates and demographics. J Am Acad Audiol, 12(4), 183–189.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brännström K.J., Holm L., Kastberg T. & Olsen S.Ø. 2014. The acceptable noise level: The effect of repeated measurements. Int J Audiol, 53(1), 21–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks D.N. 1985. Factors relating to the under-use of postaural hearing aids. Br J Audiol, 19(3), 211–217.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chalupper J. & Powers T.A. 2007. New algorithm is designed to take the annoyance out of transient noise. Hear J, 60(7), 42–44.
   Google Scholar
• Chien W. & Lin F.R. 2012. Prevalence of hearing-aid use among older adults in the United States. Arch Intern Med, 172(3), 292–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M. & Alexander G.C. 1995. The abbreviated profile of hearing-aid benefit. Ear Hear, 16(2), 176–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M. & Alexander G.C. 1999. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: the SADL scale. Ear Hear, 20(4), 306–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M. & Alexander G.C. 2002. The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): Psychometric properties of the English version. Int J Audiol, 41(1), 30–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M., Alexander G.C. & Gray G. 1999. Personality and the subjective assessment of hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 10(1), 1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cox R.M., Alexander G.C. & Gray G.A. 2007. Personality, hearing problems, and amplification characteristics: Contributions to self-report hearing-aid outcomes. Ear Hear, 28(2), 141–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R.M. & Gilmore C. 1990. Development of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP). J Speech Hear Res, 33(2), 343–357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cox R.M., Schwartz K.S., Noe C.M. & Alexander G.C. 2011. Preference for one or two hearing aids among adult patients. Ear Hear, 32(2), 181–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies W.J., Cox T.J., Kearon A.T., Longhurst B.J. & Webb C.L. 2001. Hearing loss in the built environment: The experience of elderly people. Acta Acust United Ac, 87(5), 610–616.
   Google Scholar
• Davis A., Smith P., Ferguson M., Stephens D. & Gianopoulos I. 2007. Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: A study of potential screening tests and models. Health Technol Assess, 11(42), 1–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan T.G. & Wonderlick B.A. 2000. Multi-channel compression and speech intelligibility in industrial noise. J Speech Hear Lang Res, 43(6), 1380–1388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyaldenhoven M.C., Nabelek A.K. & Tampas J.W. 2008. Relationship between Acceptable Noise Level and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. J Speech Hear Lang Res, 51(1), 136–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freyaldenhoven M.C., Smiley D.F., Muenchen R.A. & Konrad T.N. 2006. Acceptable noise level: Reliability measures and comparison to preference for background sounds. J Am Acad Audiol, 17(9), 640–648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galvez G., Turbin M.B., Thielman E.J., Istvan J.A., Andrews J.A. et al. 2012. Feasibility of ecological momentary assessment of hearing difficulties encountered by hearing-aid users. Ear Hear, 33(4), 497–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2006a. Linear and nonlinear hearing-aid fittings: 1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol, 45(3), 130–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse S., Naylor G. & Elberling C. 2006b. Linear and nonlinear hearing-aid fittings: 2. Patterns of candidature. Int J Audiol, 45(3), 153–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granberg S., Dahlström J., Möller C., Kähäri K. & Danermark B. 2014. The ICF core sets for hearing loss: Researcher perspective. Part 1: Systematic review of outcome measures identified in audiological research. Int J Audiol, 53(2), 65–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall D.A., Irwin A., Edmondson-Jones M., Phillips S. & Poxon J.E.W. 2013. An exploratory evaluation of perceptual, psychoacoustic and acoustical properties of urban soundscapes. Applied Acoustics, 74(2), 248–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley D., Rochtchina E., Newall P., Golding M. & Mitchell P. 2010. Use of hearing aids and assistive listening devices in an older Australian population. J Am Acad Audiol, 21(10), 642–653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haskell G.B., Noffsinger D., Larson V.D., Williams D.W., Dobie R.A. et al. 2002. Subjective measures of hearing-aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA clinical trial. Ear Hear, 23(4), 301–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfer K.S. & Freyman R.L. 2008. Aging and speech-on-speech masking. Ear Hear, 29(1), 87–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickson L., Clutterbuck S. & Khan A. 2010. Factors associated with hearing-aid fitting outcomes on the IOI-HA. Int J Audiol, 49(8), 586–595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hougaard S. & Ruf S. 2011. EuroTrak I: A consumer survey about hearing aids in Germany, France, and the UK. Hear Rev, 18(2), 12–28.
   Google Scholar
• Humes L.E. 2007. Hearing-aid outcome measures in older adults. In: C.A. Palmer & R.C. Seewald (eds.), Hearing Care for Adults 2006. Stafa, Switzerland: Phonak AG, pp. 265–276.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson J.A., Cox R.M. & Alexander G.C. 2010. Development of APHAB norms for WDRC hearing aids and comparisons with original norms. Ear Hear, 31(1), 47–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson J., Xu J., Schwartz K. & Cox R. 2012. Development of the Sound Acceptability Test (SAT). Presentation at the American Auditory Society Convention, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. Retrieved from www.harlmemphis.org/files/1913/7753/3743/SAT2012_Poster_embedded_fonts.pdf [27 Feb 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan-Neeman R., Muchnik C., Hildesheimer M., Henkin Y. 2012. Hearing-aid satisfaction and use in the advanced digital era. Laryngoscope, 122(9), 2029–2036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser G. 1995. The relationship between listening conditions and alternative amplification schemes for multiple memory hearing aids. Ear Hear, 16(6), 575–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser G., Dillon H. & Byrne D. 1996. Guidelines for fitting multiple memory hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 7(6), 406–418.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keidser G., O’Brien A., Latzel M. & Convery E. 2007. Evaluation of a noise-reduction algorithm that targets non-speech transient sounds. Hear J, 60(2), 29–39.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd G.R., Watson C.R. & Gygi, B. 2007. Individual differences in auditory abilities. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 418–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köbler S., Rosenhall U. & Hansson H. 2001. Bilateral hearing aids: Effects and consequences from a user perspective. Scand Audiol, 30(4), 223–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kochkin S. 2000. MarkeTrak V: Why my hearing instruments are in the drawer: The consumer’s perspective. Hear J, 53(2), 34–42.
   Google Scholar
• Kochkin S. 2002. Ten-year customer satisfaction trends in the US hearing instrument market. Hear Rev, 9(10), 14–25.
   Google Scholar
• Kochkin S. 2007. MarkeTrak VII: Obstacles to adult non-user adoption of hearing aids. Hear J, 60(4), 24–50.
   Google Scholar
• Kochkin S. 2009. MarkeTrak VIII: 25-year trends in the hearing health market. Hear Rev, 16(11), 12–31.
   Google Scholar
• Kuk F.K. & Tyler R.S. 1990. Relationship between consonant recognition and subjective ratings of hearing aids. Brit J Audiol, 24(3), 171–177.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levac D., Colquhoun H. & O’Brien K. 2010. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Sci, 5, 69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu H., Zhang H., Bentler R.A., Han D. & Zhang L. 2012. Evaluation of a transient noise reduction strategy for hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 23(8), 606–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowery K.J. & Plyler P.N. 2013. The effects of noise reduction technologies on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 24(8), 649–659.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackersie C.L. 2007. Hearing-aid maximum output and loudness discomfort: Are unaided loudness measures needed? J Am Acad Audiol, 18(6), 504–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marrone N., Mason C.R. & Kidd G. 2008. Evaluating the benefit of hearing aids in solving the cocktail party problem. Trends Amplif, 12(4), 300–315.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McCormack A. & Fortnum H. 2013. Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them? Int J Audiol, 52(5), 360–368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Megale R.L., Iório M.C. & Schochat E. 2010. Auditory training: Assessment of the benefit of hearing aids in elderly individuals. Pró-Fono: Revista de Atualização Científica, 22(2), 101–106.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meister H., Lausberg I., Kiessling J., Walger M. & von Wedel H. 2002. Determining the importance of fundamental hearing-aid attributes. Otol Neurotol, 23(4), 457–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C. & Füllgrabe C. 2010. Evaluation of the CAMEQ2-HF method for fitting hearing aids with multichannel amplitude compression. Ear Hear, 31(5), 657–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller H.G., Weber J. & Hornsby B.W. 2006. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif, 10(2), 83–93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Munro K.J. & Lutman M.E. 2004. Self-reported outcome in new hearing-aid users over a 24-week post-fitting period. Int J Audiol, 43(10), 555–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro K. & Patel R.K. 1998. Are clinical measurements of uncomfortable loudness levels a valid indicator of real-world auditory discomfort? Br J Audiol, 32, 287–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabelek A.K., Freyaldenhoven M.C., Tampas J.W., Burchfiel S.B. & Muenchen R.A. 2006. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing-aid use. J Am Acad Audiol, 17(9), 626–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabelek A.K., Tucker F M. & Letowski T.R. 1991. Toleration of background noises: Relationship with patterns of hearing-aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res, 34(3), 679–685.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ng E.H.N., Rudner M., Lunner T., Pedersen M.S. & Rönnberg J. 2013. Effects of noise and working memory capacity on memory processing of speech for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol, 52(7), 433–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noffsinger D., Haskell G.B., Larson V.D., Williams D.W., Wilson E. et al. 2002. Quality rating test of hearing-aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA clinical trial. Ear Hear, 23(4), 291–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen S.Ø. & Brännström K.J. 2014. Does the acceptable noise level (ANL) predict hearing-aid use? Int J Audiol, 53(1), 2–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens E. & Raggio M. 1988. Performance inventory for profound and severe loss (PIPSL). J Speech Hear Dis, 53(1), 42–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Palmer C.V., Mueller G.H. & Moriarty M. 1999. Profile of aided loudness: A validation procedure. Hear J, 52(6), 34–36.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer C.V., Bentler R. & Mueller H.G. 2006. Amplification with digital noise reduction and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds. Trends Amplif, 10(2), 95–104.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Perez E. & Edmonds B.A. 2012. A systematic review of studies measuring and reporting hearing-aid usage in older adults since 1999: A descriptive summary of measurement tools. PLoS One 7(3), e31831.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picou E.M., Ricketts T.A. & Hornsby B.W. 2013. How hearing aids, background noise, and visual cues influence objective listening effort. Ear Hear, 34(5), e52–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purdy S.C. & Jerram J.C.K. 1998. Investigation of the profile of hearing-aid performance in experienced hearing-aid users. Ear Hear, 19(6), 473–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts T., Henry P. & Gnewikow D. 2003. Full time directional versus user selectable microphone modes in hearing aids. Ear Hear, 24(5), 424–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi L.F., Doherty K.A. & Zwislocki J.J. 2007. Aided loudness growth and satisfaction with everyday loudness perception in compression hearing-aid users. J Am Acad Audiol, 18(3), 206–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skagerstrand A., Stenfelt S., Arlinger S. & Wikström J. 2014. Sounds perceived as annoying by hearing-aid users in their daily soundscape. Int J Audiol, 53(4), 259–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens S.D.G. & Meredith R. 1991. Qualitative reports of hearing-aid benefit. Clin Rehab, 5(3), 225–229.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens G., Flaxman S., Brunskill E., Mascarenhas M., Mathers C.D. et al. 2013. Global and regional hearing impairment prevalence: An analysis of 42 studies in 29 countries. Eur J Public Health, 23(1), 146–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Surr R.K., Walden B.E., Cord M.T. & Olson L. 2002. Influence of environmental factors on hearing-aid microphone preference. J Am Acad Audiol, 13(6), 308–322.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shekhawat G.S., Searchfield G.D. & Stinear C.M. 2013. Role of hearing aids in tinnitus intervention: A scoping review. J Am Acad Audiol, 24(8), 747–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svard I., Spens K.E., Back L., Ahlner B.H. & Barrenas M.L. 2005. The benefit method: Fitting hearing aids in noise. Noise Health, 7(29), 12–23.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Takahashi G., Martinez C.D., Beamer S., Bridges J., Noffsinger D. et al. 2007. Subjective measures of hearing-aid benefit and satisfaction in the NIDCD/VA follow-up study. J Am Acad Audiol, 18(4), 323–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomita M., Mann W.C. & Welch T.R. 2001. Use of assistive devices to address hearing impairment by older persons with disabilities. Int J Rehabil Res, 24(4), 279–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vestergaard Knudsen L., Öberg M., Nielsen C., Naylor N. & Kramer S.E. 2010. Factors influencing help seeking, hearing-aid uptake, hearing-aid use, and satisfaction with hearing aids: A review of the literature. Trends Amplif, 14, 127–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vishnubhotla S., Xiao J., Xu B., McKinney M. & Zhang T. 2012. Annoyance perception and modeling for hearing-impaired listeners. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference: Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE (pp. 161–164).
   Google Scholar
• Vuorialho A., Sorri M., Nuojua I. & Muhli A. 2006. Changes in hearing-aid use over the past 20 years. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 263(4), 355–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walden B.E., Surr R.K., Cord M.T., Edwards B. & Olson L. 2000. Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing-aid technologies. J Am Acad Audiol, 11(10), 540–560.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang D., Kjems U., Pedersen M.S., Boldt J.B. & Lunner T. 2009. Speech intelligibility in background noise with ideal binary time-frequency masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 125(4), 2336–2347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner R.L. & Bender R.A. 2002. Thresholds of discomfort for complex stimuli: Acoustic and sound-quality predictors. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 45(5), 1016–1026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong L.L., Hickson L. & McPherson B. 2003. Hearing-aid satisfaction: What does research from the past 20 years say? Trends Amplif, 7(4), 117–161.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wood S.A., Lutman M.E. 2004. Relative benefits of linear analogue and advanced digital hearing aids. Int J Audiol. 43, 144–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y.H. & Bentler R.A. 2012. Do older adults have social lifestyles that place fewer demands on hearing? J Am Acad Audiol, 23(9), 697–711.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zakis J.A., Hau J. & Blamey P.J. 2009. Environmental noise reduction configuration: Effects on preferences, satisfaction, and speech understanding. Int J Audiol, 48(12), 853–867.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar