This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BACKGROUND: Different technological alternatives are nowadays offered to persons with a severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss (HFHL). However, benefits of those technologies are still not clear. OBJECTIVE: To explore the benefits provided by frequency-compression (FC) or frequency-transpos ition (FT) hearing aids (HAs), and the electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) cochlear implant, from the perspective of users with a HFHL. METHODS: A qualitative case study research design was selected. Ten adults with a HFHL who participated in a previous FC, FT and EAS trial were enrolled. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted. Participants were questioned about their experience with each technology. Data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported better speech understanding in quiet and noisy situations, plus improved high-frequency sound detection with both HAs. Some participants mentioned lower levels of listening effort and fatigue and an improvement in self-confidence, which led to increased social participation. Most participants preferred FC or FT to their own HAs. The participant who received an EAS implant reported better performances with this technology. CONCLUSIONS: From the participants’ perspective, the three technologies can deliver greater benefits than conventional amplification for people with a severe-to-profound HFHL, but the EAS implant appears as potentially more beneficial than both HAs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hotton et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: