Editorial Board

Publication date: March 2018
Source:Hearing Research, Volume 359





from #Audiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2nWU8tt
via IFTTT

Editorial Board

Publication date: March 2018
Source:Hearing Research, Volume 359





from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2nWU8tt
via IFTTT

Editorial Board

Publication date: March 2018
Source:Hearing Research, Volume 359





from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2nWU8tt
via IFTTT

iHear Medical’s Home Hearing Screener Now FSA-Reimbursable

​iHear Medical (http://www.ihearmedical.com/) has partnered with FSAstore.com to offer the iHearTest, its FDA-cleared home hearing screener, with reimbursement eligibility through flexible spending account (FSA) programs. Anyone who suspects that they or their loved one is experiencing hearing loss can now purchase the iHearTest online and reimburse the cost through their FSA program. They can pay directly for the home screener with their FSA debit cards when checking out at FSAstore.com. Results of the iHearTest can be used to program iHear hearing aids, including the iHEAR HD and iHEAR MAX, based on a consumer's individual needs. iHearTest has been clinically proven to accurately score hearing ability in each ear on a scale from one to five based on World Health Organization guidelines. 

Published: 2/9/2018 10:58:00 AM

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2nOiGFI
via IFTTT

iHear Medical’s Home Hearing Screener Now FSA-Reimbursable

​iHear Medical (http://www.ihearmedical.com/) has partnered with FSAstore.com to offer the iHearTest, its FDA-cleared home hearing screener, with reimbursement eligibility through flexible spending account (FSA) programs. Anyone who suspects that they or their loved one is experiencing hearing loss can now purchase the iHearTest online and reimburse the cost through their FSA program. They can pay directly for the home screener with their FSA debit cards when checking out at FSAstore.com. Results of the iHearTest can be used to program iHear hearing aids, including the iHEAR HD and iHEAR MAX, based on a consumer's individual needs. iHearTest has been clinically proven to accurately score hearing ability in each ear on a scale from one to five based on World Health Organization guidelines. 

Published: 2/9/2018 10:58:00 AM

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2nOiGFI
via IFTTT

iHear Medical’s Home Hearing Screener Now FSA-Reimbursable

​iHear Medical (http://www.ihearmedical.com/) has partnered with FSAstore.com to offer the iHearTest, its FDA-cleared home hearing screener, with reimbursement eligibility through flexible spending account (FSA) programs. Anyone who suspects that they or their loved one is experiencing hearing loss can now purchase the iHearTest online and reimburse the cost through their FSA program. They can pay directly for the home screener with their FSA debit cards when checking out at FSAstore.com. Results of the iHearTest can be used to program iHear hearing aids, including the iHEAR HD and iHEAR MAX, based on a consumer's individual needs. iHearTest has been clinically proven to accurately score hearing ability in each ear on a scale from one to five based on World Health Organization guidelines. 

Published: 2/9/2018 10:58:00 AM

from #Audiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2nOiGFI
via IFTTT

Open Access: Is There a Predator at the Door?

Publication date: January 2018
Source:Journal of Voice, Volume 32, Issue 1
Author(s): Rakesh Chandra, Edward W. Fisher, Terry M. Jones, David W. Kennedy, Dennis H. Kraus, John H. Krouse, Michael Link, Lawrence R. Lustig, Bert W. O'Malley, Jay F. Piccirillo, Robert Ruben, Robert T. Sataloff, Sandra Schwartz, Raj Sindwani, Richard J. Smith, Michael G. Stewart, Peter C. Weber, D. Bradley Welling, Robin Youngs




from #Audiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2BlM4KT
via IFTTT

TOC

Publication date: January 2018
Source:Journal of Voice, Volume 32, Issue 1





from #Audiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2BSXWoW
via IFTTT

Editorial Board

Publication date: January 2018
Source:Journal of Voice, Volume 32, Issue 1





from #Audiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2Bk1EGX
via IFTTT

Calendar

Publication date: January 2018
Source:Journal of Voice, Volume 32, Issue 1





from #Audiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2BNHMwZ
via IFTTT

Calendar Listings

Publication date: January 2018
Source:Journal of Voice, Volume 32, Issue 1





from #Audiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2BinEC2
via IFTTT

Social Connectedness and Perceived Listening Effort in Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Grounded Theory to Establish Content Validity for a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure

Objectives: Individuals with hearing loss often report a need for increased effort when listening, particularly in challenging acoustic environments. Despite audiologists’ recognition of the impact of listening effort on individuals’ quality of life, there are currently no standardized clinical measures of listening effort, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). To generate items and content for a new PROM, this qualitative study explored the perceptions, understanding, and experiences of listening effort in adults with severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss before and after cochlear implantation. Design: Three focus groups (1 to 3) were conducted. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 participants from a cochlear implant (CI) center in the United Kingdom. The participants included adults (n = 15, mean age = 64.1 years, range 42 to 84 years) with acquired severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss who satisfied the UK’s national candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation and their normal-hearing significant others (n = 2). Participants were CI candidates who used hearing aids (HAs) and were awaiting CI surgery or CI recipients who used a unilateral CI or a CI and contralateral HA (CI + HA). Data from a pilot focus group conducted with 2 CI recipients were included in the analysis. The data, verbatim transcripts of the focus group proceedings, were analyzed qualitatively using constructivist grounded theory (GT) methodology. Results: A GT of listening effort in cochlear implantation was developed from participants’ accounts. The participants provided rich, nuanced descriptions of the complex and multidimensional nature of their listening effort. Interpreting and integrating these descriptions through GT methodology, listening effort was described as the mental energy required to attend to and process the auditory signal, as well as the effort required to adapt to, and compensate for, a hearing loss. Analyses also suggested that listening effort for most participants was motivated by a need to maintain a sense of social connectedness (i.e., the subjective awareness of being in touch with one’s social world). Before implantation, low social connectedness in the presence of high listening effort encouraged self-alienating behaviors and resulted in social isolation with adverse effects for participant’s well-being and quality of life. A CI moderated but did not remove the requirement for listening effort. Listening effort, in combination with the improved auditory signal supplied by the CI, enabled most participants to listen and communicate more effectively. These participants reported a restored sense of social connectedness and an acceptance of the continued need for listening effort. Conclusions: Social connectedness, effort-reward balance, and listening effort as a multidimensional phenomenon were the core constructs identified as important to participants’ experiences and understanding of listening effort. The study’s findings suggest: (1) perceived listening effort is related to social and psychological factors and (2) these factors may influence how individuals with hearing loss report on the actual cognitive processing demands of listening. These findings provide evidence in support of the Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening a heuristic that describes listening effort as a function of both motivation and demands on cognitive capacity. This GT will inform item development and establish the content validity for a new PROM for measuring listening effort. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and text of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.ear-hearing.com) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We thank Carol Llewellyn for her role as focus group observer and Angela Williams for reviewing the codebook and transcripts. In addition, the authors thank clinicians at the South Wales Cochlear Implant Programme (Bridgend) for their insights and assistance during all aspects of this project. Funding was received by a Pathway to Portfolio grant from Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board (to S.E.H.). Portions of this article were presented at the British Society of Audiology Annual Conference, Coventry, United Kingdom, April 25–27, 2016; the British Cochlear Implant Group Academic Meeting, London, United Kingdom, April 28–29, 2016; and at the Listening Effort Workshop, Australian Hearing Hub, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, February 26, 2016. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Address for correspondence: Sarah E. Hughes, South Wales Cochlear Implant Programme, Princess of Wales Hospital, Coity Road, Bridgend, Wales CF31 1RQ, United Kingdom. E-mail: sarah.hughes@wales.nhs.uk Received September 29, 2016; accepted December 6, 2017. Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2nW5nT0
via IFTTT

Social Connectedness and Perceived Listening Effort in Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Grounded Theory to Establish Content Validity for a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure

Objectives: Individuals with hearing loss often report a need for increased effort when listening, particularly in challenging acoustic environments. Despite audiologists’ recognition of the impact of listening effort on individuals’ quality of life, there are currently no standardized clinical measures of listening effort, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). To generate items and content for a new PROM, this qualitative study explored the perceptions, understanding, and experiences of listening effort in adults with severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss before and after cochlear implantation. Design: Three focus groups (1 to 3) were conducted. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 participants from a cochlear implant (CI) center in the United Kingdom. The participants included adults (n = 15, mean age = 64.1 years, range 42 to 84 years) with acquired severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss who satisfied the UK’s national candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation and their normal-hearing significant others (n = 2). Participants were CI candidates who used hearing aids (HAs) and were awaiting CI surgery or CI recipients who used a unilateral CI or a CI and contralateral HA (CI + HA). Data from a pilot focus group conducted with 2 CI recipients were included in the analysis. The data, verbatim transcripts of the focus group proceedings, were analyzed qualitatively using constructivist grounded theory (GT) methodology. Results: A GT of listening effort in cochlear implantation was developed from participants’ accounts. The participants provided rich, nuanced descriptions of the complex and multidimensional nature of their listening effort. Interpreting and integrating these descriptions through GT methodology, listening effort was described as the mental energy required to attend to and process the auditory signal, as well as the effort required to adapt to, and compensate for, a hearing loss. Analyses also suggested that listening effort for most participants was motivated by a need to maintain a sense of social connectedness (i.e., the subjective awareness of being in touch with one’s social world). Before implantation, low social connectedness in the presence of high listening effort encouraged self-alienating behaviors and resulted in social isolation with adverse effects for participant’s well-being and quality of life. A CI moderated but did not remove the requirement for listening effort. Listening effort, in combination with the improved auditory signal supplied by the CI, enabled most participants to listen and communicate more effectively. These participants reported a restored sense of social connectedness and an acceptance of the continued need for listening effort. Conclusions: Social connectedness, effort-reward balance, and listening effort as a multidimensional phenomenon were the core constructs identified as important to participants’ experiences and understanding of listening effort. The study’s findings suggest: (1) perceived listening effort is related to social and psychological factors and (2) these factors may influence how individuals with hearing loss report on the actual cognitive processing demands of listening. These findings provide evidence in support of the Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening a heuristic that describes listening effort as a function of both motivation and demands on cognitive capacity. This GT will inform item development and establish the content validity for a new PROM for measuring listening effort. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and text of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.ear-hearing.com) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We thank Carol Llewellyn for her role as focus group observer and Angela Williams for reviewing the codebook and transcripts. In addition, the authors thank clinicians at the South Wales Cochlear Implant Programme (Bridgend) for their insights and assistance during all aspects of this project. Funding was received by a Pathway to Portfolio grant from Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board (to S.E.H.). Portions of this article were presented at the British Society of Audiology Annual Conference, Coventry, United Kingdom, April 25–27, 2016; the British Cochlear Implant Group Academic Meeting, London, United Kingdom, April 28–29, 2016; and at the Listening Effort Workshop, Australian Hearing Hub, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, February 26, 2016. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Address for correspondence: Sarah E. Hughes, South Wales Cochlear Implant Programme, Princess of Wales Hospital, Coity Road, Bridgend, Wales CF31 1RQ, United Kingdom. E-mail: sarah.hughes@wales.nhs.uk Received September 29, 2016; accepted December 6, 2017. Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2nW5nT0
via IFTTT

Social Connectedness and Perceived Listening Effort in Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Grounded Theory to Establish Content Validity for a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure

Objectives: Individuals with hearing loss often report a need for increased effort when listening, particularly in challenging acoustic environments. Despite audiologists’ recognition of the impact of listening effort on individuals’ quality of life, there are currently no standardized clinical measures of listening effort, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). To generate items and content for a new PROM, this qualitative study explored the perceptions, understanding, and experiences of listening effort in adults with severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss before and after cochlear implantation. Design: Three focus groups (1 to 3) were conducted. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 17 participants from a cochlear implant (CI) center in the United Kingdom. The participants included adults (n = 15, mean age = 64.1 years, range 42 to 84 years) with acquired severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss who satisfied the UK’s national candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation and their normal-hearing significant others (n = 2). Participants were CI candidates who used hearing aids (HAs) and were awaiting CI surgery or CI recipients who used a unilateral CI or a CI and contralateral HA (CI + HA). Data from a pilot focus group conducted with 2 CI recipients were included in the analysis. The data, verbatim transcripts of the focus group proceedings, were analyzed qualitatively using constructivist grounded theory (GT) methodology. Results: A GT of listening effort in cochlear implantation was developed from participants’ accounts. The participants provided rich, nuanced descriptions of the complex and multidimensional nature of their listening effort. Interpreting and integrating these descriptions through GT methodology, listening effort was described as the mental energy required to attend to and process the auditory signal, as well as the effort required to adapt to, and compensate for, a hearing loss. Analyses also suggested that listening effort for most participants was motivated by a need to maintain a sense of social connectedness (i.e., the subjective awareness of being in touch with one’s social world). Before implantation, low social connectedness in the presence of high listening effort encouraged self-alienating behaviors and resulted in social isolation with adverse effects for participant’s well-being and quality of life. A CI moderated but did not remove the requirement for listening effort. Listening effort, in combination with the improved auditory signal supplied by the CI, enabled most participants to listen and communicate more effectively. These participants reported a restored sense of social connectedness and an acceptance of the continued need for listening effort. Conclusions: Social connectedness, effort-reward balance, and listening effort as a multidimensional phenomenon were the core constructs identified as important to participants’ experiences and understanding of listening effort. The study’s findings suggest: (1) perceived listening effort is related to social and psychological factors and (2) these factors may influence how individuals with hearing loss report on the actual cognitive processing demands of listening. These findings provide evidence in support of the Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening a heuristic that describes listening effort as a function of both motivation and demands on cognitive capacity. This GT will inform item development and establish the content validity for a new PROM for measuring listening effort. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and text of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.ear-hearing.com) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We thank Carol Llewellyn for her role as focus group observer and Angela Williams for reviewing the codebook and transcripts. In addition, the authors thank clinicians at the South Wales Cochlear Implant Programme (Bridgend) for their insights and assistance during all aspects of this project. Funding was received by a Pathway to Portfolio grant from Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board (to S.E.H.). Portions of this article were presented at the British Society of Audiology Annual Conference, Coventry, United Kingdom, April 25–27, 2016; the British Cochlear Implant Group Academic Meeting, London, United Kingdom, April 28–29, 2016; and at the Listening Effort Workshop, Australian Hearing Hub, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, February 26, 2016. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Address for correspondence: Sarah E. Hughes, South Wales Cochlear Implant Programme, Princess of Wales Hospital, Coity Road, Bridgend, Wales CF31 1RQ, United Kingdom. E-mail: sarah.hughes@wales.nhs.uk Received September 29, 2016; accepted December 6, 2017. Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

from #Audiology via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2nW5nT0
via IFTTT