AbstractIn this chapter you will be introduced to the hearing aid test box equipment and work through how to prepare the equipment so that it is ready to provide the testing you will use to evaluate, fit, and troubleshoot hearing aids and other amplifiers. At the end of this chapter, you will be familiar with terminology associated with hearing aid test box measures and the leveling required with the reference microphone and coupler microphone to ensure that your measurements are accurate and can be interpreted.

AbstractIf there is sound in the ear canal, you can measure it with a probe microphone in the ear. The following are a few examples of how you might use your real-ear probe microphone measures beyond verifying hearing aid fittings, signal processing, and function of features. A process to simulate hearing loss to educate and support family members and patients is described.

AbstractProbe microphone measurements are an essential step in an individualized hearing aid fitting. These measurements allow audiologists to account for the individual's hearing and ear canal acoustics when programming hearing aids. An evidence-based hearing aid fitting includes matching the measured output of the hearing aids to targets for each input level and frequency. This allows the audiologist to confidently counsel the patient that the acoustic fitting is accurate, and the next step is for the individual to use the amplification during all waking hours to adapt to the newly amplified sounds. This also avoids mistakes such as overamplification or insufficient gain, which can endanger the patient and/or lead to a compromised fitting.

Speech-in-noise testing has been proposed as a useful part of the audiometric test battery dating back to the earliest years of the field of audiology. Many speech-in-noise tests have been developed and used to varying degrees. However, multiple barriers have prevented speech-in-noise testing from being used widely in the clinic. The purpose of this article is to provide a resource to audiologists and other hearing health professionals who want to know (1) what tests are available for use, (2) the rationale behind specific tests, and (3) important considerations when selecting one or more tests to use clinically. In addition, data are presented for four speech-in-noise tests with the purpose of comparing outcomes as a function of age and hearing status. The four tests (QuickSIN, Words in Noise [WIN], Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences [LiSN-S], and Coordinate Response Measure [CRM]) were completed by 30 individuals from three groups: 10 young adults with normal hearing, 10 older adults with normal hearing, and 10 older adults with hearing loss. The results suggest that, despite significant differences in performance between groups, group overlap was present such that some individuals from one group performed similar to some individuals of other groups; therefore, individual performance was more important than associated group. When selecting an appropriate speech-in-noise test to use clinically, audiologists should carefully consider the purpose of their testing and the type of information they desire as an outcome. A quick-resource table and appendix is provided to aid audiologists and other health professionals in their selection of an appropriate speech-in-noise test.

It has been established that blast exposure and brain injury can result in self-reported and measured auditory processing deficits in individuals with normal or near-normal hearing sensitivity. However, the impaired sensory and/or cognitive mechanisms underlying these auditory difficulties are largely unknown. This work used a combination of behavioral and electrophysiological measures to explore how neural stimulus discrimination and processing speed contribute to impaired temporal processing in blast-exposed Veterans measured using the behavioral Gaps-in-Noise (GIN) Test. Results confirm previous findings that blast exposure can impact performance on the GIN and effect neural auditory discrimination, as measured using the P3 auditory event-related potential. Furthermore, analyses revealed correlations between GIN thresholds, P3 responses, and a measure of behavioral reaction time. Overall, this work illustrates that behavioral responses to the GIN are dependent on both auditory-specific bottom-up processing beginning with the neural activation of the cochlea and auditory brainstem as well as contributions from complex neural networks involved in processing speed and task-dependent target detection.

For more than 50 years, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), part of the United States (U.S.) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has been actively working to reduce the effects of noise and ototoxic chemicals on worker hearing. NIOSH has pioneered basic and applied research on occupational hearing risks and preventive measures. The Institute has issued recommendations and promoted effective interventions through mechanisms ranging from formal criteria documents to blogs and social media. NIOSH has conducted surveillance and published statistics to guide policy and target prevention efforts. Over the past five decades, substantial progress has been made in raising awareness of noise as a hazard, reducing the risk of occupational hearing loss, improving the use of hearing protection, and advancing measurement and control technologies. Nevertheless, noise remains a prevalent workplace hazard and occupational hearing loss is still one of the most common work-related conditions. NIOSH continues to work toward preventing the effects of noise and ototoxicants at work and has many resources to assist audiologists in their hearing loss prevention efforts.

Tinnitus is highly prevalent among military Veterans. Severe tinnitus can be associated with negative impacts on daily life. Veterans with severe tinnitus may also have greater difficulties in functional roles, including work. However, few studies have explicitly explored this relationship. Traumatic brain injury (TBI), also prevalent among Veterans, is associated with tinnitus and can additionally impair work functioning. This quantitative investigation used a population-based survey to assess the relationship between tinnitus severity, measured using the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI), and the impact of tinnitus on work, measured using a composite score from the Tinnitus History Questionnaire, among a stratified random sample of VA healthcare-using Veterans diagnosed with tinnitus, with and without comorbid TBI. Analyses were weighted to account for sampling design and Veteran non-response; multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Results indicated that for every 1-point increase in TFI score, there was an average 8% increase in the odds of reporting a high level of impact on work functioning (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.11). Veterans with a comorbid TBI diagnosis, compared with those without, were more likely to have high tinnitus-related impact on work functioning (OR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.85, 3.91), but the relationship between tinnitus severity and the impact of tinnitus on work functioning did not differ by TBI status. These data can help researchers and clinicians understand complex symptoms experienced by Veterans with tinnitus, with and without TBI, supporting the improved provision of clinical services to these patients.

There are many examples of remote technologies that are clinically effective and provide numerous benefits to adults with hearing loss. Despite this, the uptake of remote technologies for hearing healthcare has been both low and slow until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been a key driver for change globally. The time is now right to take advantage of the many benefits that remote technologies offer, through clinical, consumer, or hybrid services and channels. These include greater access and choice, better interactivity and engagement, and tailoring of technologies to individual needs, leading to clients who are better informed, enabled, and empowered to self-manage their hearing loss. This article provides an overview of the clinical research evidence-base across a range of remote technologies along the hearing health journey. This includes qualitative, as well as quantitative, methods to ensure the end-users' voice is at the core of the research, thereby promoting person-centered principles. Most of these remote technologies are available and some are already in use, albeit not widespread. Finally, whenever new technologies or processes are implemented into services, be they clinical, hybrid, or consumer, careful consideration needs to be given to the required behavior change of the key people (e.g., clients and service providers) to facilitate and optimize implementation.

This study aimed to scope the literature, identify knowledge gaps, appraise results, and synthesize the evidence on the audiological evaluation of workers exposed to solvents. We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and NIOSHTIC-2 up to March 22, 2021. Using Covidence, two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tools was used in the quality evaluation of included studies; the Downs and Black checklist was used to assess the risk of bias. Of 454 located references, 37 were included. Twenty-five tests were studied: two tests to measure hearing thresholds, one test to measure word recognition in quiet, six electroacoustic procedures, four electrophysiological tests, and twelve behavioral tests to assess auditory processing skills. Two studies used the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap. The quality of individual studies was mostly considered moderate, but the overall quality of evidence was considered low. The discrepancies between studies and differences in the methodologies/outcomes prevent recommending a specific test battery to assess the auditory effects of occupational solvents. Decisions on audiological tests for patients with a history of solvent exposures require the integration of the most current research evidence with clinical expertise and stakeholder perspectives.

Tinnitus acoustic therapy is defined as any use of sound where the intent is to alter the tinnitus perception and/or the reactions to tinnitus in a clinically beneficial way. The parameters of sound that may cause beneficial effects, however, are currently only theorized with limited data supporting their effectiveness. Residual inhibition is the temporary suppression or elimination of tinnitus that is usually observed following appropriate auditory stimulation. Our pilot study investigated the effects of a therapeutic acoustic stimulus that was individually customized to maximize residual inhibition of tinnitus and extend its duration to determine if there could be a sustained suppression of the tinnitus signal (i.e., reduced tinnitus loudness) and a reduction in the psychological and emotional reactions to tinnitus. This pilot study had two objectives: (1) to evaluate the feasibility of residual inhibition technique therapy through daily use of hearing aids and (2) to determine its effects by measuring reactionary changes in tinnitus with the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) and perceptual changes in tinnitus loudness. A total of 20 adults (14 males, 6 females; mean age: 58 years, SD = 12.88) with chronic tinnitus were enrolled in a four-visit study that consisted of the following: (1) baseline visit and initiation of the intervention period, (2) a 1-month postintervention visit, (3) 2-month postintervention visit and initiation of a wash-out period, and (4) a 3-month visit to assess the wash-out period and any lasting effects of the intervention. The intervention consisted of fitting bilateral hearing aids and creating an individualized residual inhibition stimulus that was streamed via Bluetooth from a smartphone application to the hearing aids. The participants were instructed to wear the hearing aids and stream the residual inhibition stimulus all waking hours for the 2-month intervention period. During the wash-out period, the participants were instructed to use the hearing aids for amplification, but the residual inhibition stimulus was discontinued. At all visits, the participants completed the TFI, study-specific self-report measures to document perceptions of tinnitus, a psychoacoustic test battery consisting of tinnitus loudness and pitch matching, and a residual inhibition test battery consisting of minimum masking and minimum residual inhibition levels. At the end of the trial, participants were interviewed about the study experience and acceptability of the residual inhibition treatment technique. Repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted on the two main outcomes (TFI total score and tinnitus loudness) across all four visits. The results showed a significant main effect of visit on the TFI total score ( p < 0.0001). Specifically, the results indicated a significant reduction in TFI total scores from baseline to the 1-month post-intervention period, which remained stable across the 2-month post-intervention period and the wash-out period. The ANOVA results did not show a significant change in tinnitus loudness as a function of visit ( p = 0.480). The majority of the participants reported a positive experience with the study intervention at their exit interview. This pilot study demonstrated that residual inhibition as a sound therapy for tinnitus, specifically through the daily use of hearing aids, was feasible and acceptable to individuals suffering from chronic tinnitus. In addition, participants showed improvement in reactions to tinnitus as demonstrated by sustained reduction in TFI scores on average over the course of the treatment period. Achieving residual inhibition may also provide patients a feeling of control over their tinnitus, and this may have a synergistic effect in reducing the psychological and emotional distress associated with tinnitus. There was no significant reduction in long-term tinnitus loudness resulting from the residual inhibition treatment; however, the current pilot study may not have had sufficient power to detect such a change. The combination of tinnitus suppression and improved psychosocial/emotional reactions to tinnitus may result in a better quality of life in both the short and long term. A larger-scale study is needed to determine the validity of using residual inhibition as a clinical therapy option and to ascertain any effects on both perception and reactions to tinnitus.