【24h】

A comparison of the audiometric performance of bone anchored hearing AIDS and air conduction hearing AIDS.

机译:骨锚式助听器和空气传导性助听器的听力测试性能比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE To compare the function of bone anchored hearing aids (BAHA) with conventional air conduction hearing aids (ACHA) by means of objective audiometric tests focusing on temporal acuity and consonant discrimination in quiet and noise, as well as subjective quality-of-life questionnaires.SETTING Tertiary referral center.STUDY DESIGN Prospective.SUBJECTS Patients using BAHAs because of profuse drainage from chronic suppurative otitis media, and a comparison group of healthy volunteers.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Objective measures: sound field audiograms, duration discrimination, gap discrimination, and final and initial consonant discrimination in quiet and in noise. Subjective measures: Sanders' Profiles, MOS SF-36 questionnaireRESULTS Normal-hearing subjects always performed better than hearing-impaired patients in all tests. When the BAHA was compared with the ACHA, there were no significant differences in any of the measures.CONCLUSIONS The BAHA and the ACHA provided similar audiometric functioning in audiometric tests. The BAHA, although using a nonphysiologic sound conduction route, did not sacrifice temporal processing ability or speech perception in noise, and should be considered for patients with profuse ear drainage.
机译:目的通过客观听觉测试,比较安静和噪音下的时间敏锐度和辅音辨别力,以及主观生活质量调查表,比较骨锚式助听器(BAHA)与常规空气传导助听器(ACHA)的功能设置第三级转诊中心。研究设计的前瞻性。对象由于慢性化脓性中耳炎大量引流而使用BAHA的患者,以及健康志愿者的对照组。以及在安静和嘈杂声中的初始辅音识别。主观措施:Sanders档案,MOS SF-36问卷结果在所有测试中,正常听力的受试者总是比听力受损的患者表现更好。将BAHA与ACHA进行比较时,在任何一种测量方法上都没有显着差异。结论BAHA和ACHA在测听测试中提供了相似的测听功能。 BAHA虽然使用了非生理性的声音传导途径,但并未牺牲时间处理能力或语音中的语音感知能力,因此对于大量引流的患者应考虑采用BAHA。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号