PDF herunterladen
Semin Hear 2014; 35(03): 227-238
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1383507
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Use of a Frequency-Modulated System for Veterans with Blast Exposure, Perceived Hearing Problems, and Normal Hearing Sensitivity

Gabrielle H. Saunders
1   National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, Portland VA Medical Center
2   Department of Otolaryngology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
,
Melissa T. Frederick
1   National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, Portland VA Medical Center
,
Theresa H. Chisolm
3   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida
,
ShienPei Silverman
1   National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, Portland VA Medical Center
,
Michelle Arnold
3   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida
,
Paula Myers
4   James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital, Tampa, Florida
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
25. Juli 2014 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury can impact the central auditory system leading to poor auditory recall and increased difficulties hearing in poor acoustic environments. In recent years, audiologists have increasingly encountered blast-exposed veterans who report speech understanding problems that are disproportionate to their essentially normal hearing sensitivity, and thus are thought to have an auditory processing disorder. In light of studies showing frequency-modulated (FM) systems to be effective rehabilitation for auditory processing difficulties, we examined the use of an FM system intervention for blast-exposed veterans with functional hearing problems in the presence of normal hearing sensitivity. The outcomes for three veterans who were provided with an FM system as part of a multisite randomized clinical trial are described. Data indicate that FM systems are beneficial for some patients reporting hearing problems in the presence of normal hearing sensitivity but factors other than audiometric profile and reported complaints influence outcome. These include understanding of speech in noise, patient communication demands, auditory lifestyle, and the presence of posttraumatic stress disorder or other mental health factors. Furthermore, education (and reeducation if necessary) of the patient and their spouse or family is critical to successful outcome.

Keywords

Traumatic brain injury - rehabilitation - auditory processing disorder - assistive devices - case reports
 

  • References

  • 1 Faul M, Xu L, Wald MM, Coronado VG. Traumatic Brain Injury in the United States: Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations and Deaths 2002–2006. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2010. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/pdf/blue_book.pdf . Accessed March 13, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Report to congress on mild traumatic brain injury in the United States: Steps to prevent a serious public health problem. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2003. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/mtbi/mtbireport.pdf . Accessed March 13, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Alves W, Macciocchi SN, Barth JT. Postconcussive symptoms after uncomplicated mild head injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1993; 8 (3) 48-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Vander Werff KR. Auditory dysfunction among long-term consequences of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Perspectives on Hearing and Hearing Disorders: Research and Diagnostics 2012; 16 (1) 3-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lew HL, Jerger JF, Guillory SB, Henry JA. Auditory dysfunction in traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Res Dev 2007; 44 (7) 921-928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Oleksiak M, Smith BM, St Andre JR, Caughlan CM, Steiner M. Audiological issues and hearing loss among veterans with mild traumatic brain injury. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012; 49 (7) 995-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Department of Veterans Affairs. Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. PT/BRI QUERI TBI screening and evaluation research fact sheet. . Available at: http://www.queri.research.va.gov/ptbri/docs/vha-tbi-screening-eval.pdf . Accessed March 13, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Howe LL. Giving context to post-deployment post-concussive-like symptoms: blast-related potential mild traumatic brain injury and comorbidities. Clin Neuropsychol 2009; 23 (8) 1315-1337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rodriguez-Paez AC, Brunschwig JP, Bramlett HM. Light and electron microscopic assessment of progressive atrophy following moderate traumatic brain injury in the rat. Acta Neuropathol 2005; 109 (6) 603-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Okie S. Traumatic brain injury in the war zone. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 (20) 2043-2047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Peru A, Beltramello A, Moro V, Sattibaldi L, Berlucchi G. Temporary and permanent signs of interhemispheric disconnection after traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychologia 2003; 41 (5) 634-643
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gallun FJ, Lewis MS, Folmer RL , et al. Implications of blast exposure for central auditory function: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012; 49 (7) 1059-1074
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chermak GD. Deciphering auditory processing disorders in children. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2002; 35 (4) 733-749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jerger J, Musiek F. Report of the Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis of Auditory Processing Disorders in School-Aged Children. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (9) 467-474
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Whitelaw G. Auditory processing in adults: beyond the audiogram. Available at: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/article_detail.asp?article_id=2138 . Accessed March 13, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Boothroyd A. Hearing aid accessories for adults: the remote FM microphone. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (1) 22-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jerger J, Chmiel R, Florin E, Pirozzolo F, Wilson N. Comparison of conventional amplification and an assistive listening device in elderly persons. Ear Hear 1996; 17 (6) 490-504
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lewis MS, Crandell CC, Valente M, Horn JE. Speech perception in noise: directional microphones versus frequency modulation (FM) systems. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (6) 426-439
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Anderson KL, Goldstein H. Speech perception benefits of FM and infrared devices to children with hearing aids in a typical classroom. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2004; 35 (2) 169-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schafer EC, Thibodeau LM. Speech recognition in noise in children with cochlear implants while listening in bilateral, bimodal, and FM-system arrangements. Am J Audiol 2006; 15 (2) 114-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Johnston KN, John AB, Kreisman NV, Hall III JW, Crandell CC. Multiple benefits of personal FM system use by children with auditory processing disorder (APD). Int J Audiol 2009; 48 (6) 371-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sharma M, Purdy SC, Kelly AS. A randomized control trial of interventions in school-aged children with auditory processing disorders. Int J Audiol 2012; 51 (7) 506-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Phonak Hearing Systems. Edulink: Improves speech understanding in noisy classrooms. Available at: http://www.phonakpro.com/content/dam/phonak/b2b/C_M_tools/Library/Field_Study_News/en/fsn_EduLink_may04.pdf . Accessed verified March 13, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Shane L. Researchers: alcohol misuse, divorce rates higher among returning troops. Stars and Stripes; December 9, 2005. Available at: http://www.stripes.com/news/researchers-alcohol-misuse-divorce-rates-higher-among-returning-troops-1.42192 . Accessed March 13, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Associated Press. Unemployment rate for young veterans hits 21.1 percent for ages 18 to 24. Washington Post; March 13, 2010. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031204123.html . Accessed March 13, 2014.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gatehouse S, Noble W. The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (2) 85-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Noble W. Assessing binaural hearing: results using the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21 (9) 568-574
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cameron S, Dillon H. The listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S): test-retest reliability study. Int J Audiol 2007; 46 (3) 145-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95 (2) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Can J Rehabil 1996; 9: 159-168
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Spina L, Ruff R, Mahncke H. Cognitive Self-Report Questionnaire (CSRQ) Manual. San Francisco, CA: Posit Science Corporation; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Banh J, Singh G, Pichora-Fuller MK. Age affects responses on the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) by adults with minimal audiometric loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (2) 81-91 , quiz 139–140
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Brown DK, Cameron S, Martin JS, Watson C, Dillon H. The North American Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences test (NA LiSN-S): normative data and test-retest reliability studies for adolescents and young adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21 (10) 629-641
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Baddeley A. The central executive: a concept and some misconceptions. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 1998; 4 (5) 523-526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kahneman D. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1973
    Google Scholar
  • 36 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. FM systems. Available at: http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/FM-Systems/ . Accessed March 13, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Chisolm TH, Noe CM, McArdle R, Abrams H. Evidence for the use of hearing assistive technology by adults: the role of the FM system. Trends Amplif 2007; 11 (2) 73-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Bahraini NH, Brenner LA, Harwood JE , et al. Utility of the trauma symptom inventory for the assessment of post-traumatic stress symptoms in veterans with a history of psychological trauma and/or brain injury. Mil Med 2009; 174 (10) 1005-1009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Betthauser LM, Bahraini N, Krengel MH, Brenner LA. Self-report measures to identify post traumatic stress disorder and/or mild traumatic brain injury and associated symptoms in military veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Neuropsychol Rev 2012; 22 (1) 35-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Schneiderman AI, Braver ER, Kang HK. Understanding sequelae of injury mechanisms and mild traumatic brain injury incurred during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan: persistent postconcussive symptoms and posttraumatic stress disorder. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 167 (12) 1446-1452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Sumpter RE, McMillan TM. Misdiagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder following severe traumatic brain injury. Br J Psychiatry 2005; 186: 423-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Hoge CW, Goldberg HM, Castro CA. Care of war veterans with mild traumatic brain injury—flawed perspectives. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (16) 1588-1591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar