Search

Three hundred twenty zinc-air batteries representing four manufacturers (Energizer, Power One, Duracell, and Ray-O-Vac) and four cell sizes (10, 312, 13, and 675) were exposed in a salt spray fog apparatus for 2.5, 5.5, 24, 48, and 72 hours. At the conclusion of each exposure, the batteries were rated blindly for the presence of rust by four experienced audiologists using a four point rating scale. Results revealed significant differences in the rating of rust across the four manufacturers and duration of exposure. No statistically significant difference was found across cell size. Also, the correlation between raters was exceptionally high indicating that each audiologist rated the presence of rust for each battery in a very similar manner. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS), and Auger electron spectroscopy (AES) techniques were applied and provided answers for the observed differences in rust between the four manufacturers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Successful intervention to support a child with congenital hearing loss requires early identification and consistent access to frequent professional services. In the early 2000s, the United States implemented an initiative, Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI), to provide timely identification and treatment of congenital hearing loss. This national program aims to screen hearing by 1 month of age, diagnose hearing loss by 3 months of age, and provide intervention to infants with hearing loss by 6 months of age. To date, the United States is successfully implementing hearing screening by 1 month of age but continually struggling to diagnose and treat congenital hearing loss promptly for many infants. This article begins by exploring the current state of American children and families, focusing on social determinants of health, specifically race and poverty. The objective is to understand how race affects social determinants of health, and ultimately hearing healthcare access for children. A narrative literature review spanning public health, sociology, and hearing research was completed to inform this work. The current body of literature supports the conclusion that race and racism, separate from poverty, lead to decreased access to pediatric hearing healthcare. Interventions targeting these issues are necessary to improve timely access to hearing loss diagnosis and treatment for American children., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Whether, and if so when, a second-ear cochlear implant should be provided to older, unilaterally implanted children is an ongoing clinical question. This study evaluated rate of speech recognition progress for the second implanted ear and with bilateral cochlear implants in older sequentially implanted children and evaluated localization abilities., Method: A prospective longitudinal study included 24 bilaterally implanted children (mean ear surgeries at 5.11 and 14.25 years). Test intervals were every 3-6 months through 24 months postbilateral. Test conditions were each ear and bilaterally for speech recognition and localization., Results: Overall, the rate of progress for the second implanted ear was gradual. Improvements in quiet continued through the second year of bilateral use. Improvements in noise were more modest and leveled off during the second year. On all measures, results from the second ear were poorer than the first. Bilateral scores were better than either ear alone for all measures except sentences in quiet and localization., Conclusions: Older sequentially implanted children with several years between surgeries may obtain speech understanding in the second implanted ear; however, performance may be limited and rate of progress gradual. Continued contralateral ear hearing aid use and reduced time between surgeries may enhance outcomes.

Background: Cochlear implants (CIs) have been shown to improve children's speech recognition over traditional amplification when severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss is present. Despite improvements, understanding speech at low-level intensities or in the presence of background noise remains difficult. In an effort to improve speech understanding in challenging environments, Cochlear Ltd. offers preprocessing strategies that apply various algorithms before mapping the signal to the internal array. Two of these strategies include Autosensitivity Control™ (ASC) and Adaptive Dynamic Range Optimization (ADRO(®)). Based on the previous research, the manufacturer's default preprocessing strategy for pediatrics' everyday programs combines ASC + ADRO(®)., Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare pediatric speech perception performance across various preprocessing strategies while applying a specific programming protocol using increased threshold levels to ensure access to very low-level sounds., Research Design: This was a prospective, cross-sectional, observational study. Participants completed speech perception tasks in four preprocessing conditions: no preprocessing, ADRO(®), ASC, and ASC + ADRO(®)., Study Sample: Eleven pediatric Cochlear Ltd. CI users were recruited: six bilateral, one unilateral, and four bimodal., Intervention: Four programs, with the participants' everyday map, were loaded into the processor with different preprocessing strategies applied in each of the four programs: no preprocessing, ADRO(®), ASC, and ASC + ADRO(®)., Data Collection and Analysis: Participants repeated consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words presented at 50 and 70 dB SPL in quiet and Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) sentences presented adaptively with competing R-Space(TM) noise at 60 and 70 dB SPL. Each measure was completed as participants listened with each of the four preprocessing strategies listed above. Test order and conditions were randomized. A repeated-measures analysis of was used to compare each preprocessing strategy for the group. Critical differences were used to determine significant score differences between each preprocessing strategy for individual participants., Results: For CNC words presented at 50 dB SPL, the group data revealed significantly better scores using ASC + ADRO(®) compared to all other preprocessing conditions while ASC resulted in poorer scores compared to ADRO(®) and ASC + ADRO(®). Group data for HINT sentences presented in 70 dB SPL of R-Space(TM) noise revealed significantly improved scores using ASC and ASC + ADRO(®) compared to no preprocessing, with ASC + ADRO(®) scores being better than ADRO(®) alone scores. Group data for CNC words presented at 70 dB SPL and adaptive HINT sentences presented in 60 dB SPL of R-Space(TM) noise showed no significant difference among conditions. Individual data showed that the preprocessing strategy yielding the best scores varied across measures and participants., Conclusions: Group data reveal an advantage with ASC + ADRO(®) for speech perception presented at lower levels and in higher levels of background noise. Individual data revealed that the optimal preprocessing strategy varied among participants, indicating that a variety of preprocessing strategies should be explored for each CI user considering his or her performance in challenging listening environments., (American Academy of Audiology.)

Background: A coordinated fitting of a cochlear implant (CI) and contralateral hearing aid (HA) for bimodal device use should emphasize balanced audibility and loudness across devices. However, guidelines for allocating frequency information to the CI and HA are not well established for the growing population of bimodal recipients., Purpose: The study aim was to compare the effects of three different HA frequency responses, when fitting a CI and an HA for bimodal use, on speech recognition and localization in children/young adults. Specifically, the three frequency responses were wideband, restricted high frequency, and nonlinear frequency compression (NLFC), which were compared with measures of word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, talker discrimination, and sound localization., Research Design: The HA frequency responses were evaluated using an A B₁ A B₂ test design: wideband frequency response (baseline-A), restricted high-frequency response (experimental-B₁), and NLFC-activated (experimental-B2). All participants were allowed 3-4 weeks between each test session for acclimatization to each new HA setting. Bimodal benefit was determined by comparing the bimodal score to the CI-alone score., Study Sample: Participants were 14 children and young adults (ages 7-21 yr) who were experienced users of bimodal devices. All had been unilaterally implanted with a Nucleus CI24 internal system and used either a Freedom or CP810 speech processor. All received a Phonak Naida IX UP behind-the-ear HA at the beginning of the study., Data Collection and Analysis: Group results for the three bimodal conditions (HA frequency response with wideband, restricted high frequency, and NLFC) on each outcome measure were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance. Group results using the individual "best bimodal" score were analyzed and confirmed using a resampling procedure. Correlation analyses examined the effects of audibility (aided and unaided hearing) in each bimodal condition for each outcome measure. Individual data were analyzed for word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and localization. Individual preference for the three bimodal conditions was also assessed., Results: Group data revealed no significant difference between the three bimodal conditions for word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and talker discrimination. However, group data for the localization measure revealed that both wideband and NLFC resulted in significantly improved bimodal performance. The condition that yielded the "best bimodal" score varied across participants. Because of this individual variability, the "best bimodal" score was chosen for each participant to reassess group data within word recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and talker discrimination. This method revealed a bimodal benefit for word recognition in quiet after a randomization test was used to confirm significance. The majority of the participants preferred NLFC at the conclusion of the study, although a few preferred a restricted high-frequency response or reported no preference., Conclusions: These results support consideration of restricted high-frequency and NLFC HA responses in addition to traditional wideband response for bimodal device users., (American Academy of Audiology.)

Objective: Traditionally, children are cochlear implant (CI) candidates if bilateral severe to profound hearing loss is present and amplification benefit is limited. The current study investigated abilities of adolescents with asymmetric hearing loss (one ear with severe to profound hearing loss and better hearing contralaterally), where the poorer ear received a CI and the better ear maintained amplification., Study Design: Within-subject case study., Setting: Pediatric hospital, outpatient clinic., Patients: Participants were 5 adolescents who had not met traditional CI candidacy because of one better hearing ear but did have 1 ear that met criteria and was implanted. All maintained hearing aid (HA) use in the contralateral ear. In the poorer ear, before implant, 3 participants had used amplification, and the other 2 had no HA experience., Main Outcome Measure: Participants were assessed in 3 listening conditions: HA alone, CI alone, and both devices together (bimodal) for speech recognition in quiet and noise and sound localization., Results: Three participants had CI open-set speech recognition and significant bimodal improvement for speech recognition and localization compared with the HA or CI alone. Two participants had no CI speech recognition and limited bimodal improvement., Conclusion: Some adolescents with asymmetric hearing loss who are not typical CI candidates can benefit from a CI in the poorer ear, compared with a HA in the better ear alone. Additional study is needed to determine outcomes for this population, especially those who have early onset profound hearing loss in one ear and limited HA experience.