Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016;21(6):391-398.
doi: 10.1159/000455058. Epub 2017 Mar 21.

Towards a Unified Testing Framework for Single-Sided Deafness Studies: A Consensus Paper

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Towards a Unified Testing Framework for Single-Sided Deafness Studies: A Consensus Paper

Paul Van de Heyning et al. Audiol Neurootol. 2016.

Abstract

Background: While hearing aids for a contralateral routing of signals (CROS-HA) and bone conduction devices have been the traditional treatment for single-sided deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), in recent years, cochlear implants (CIs) have increasingly become a viable treatment choice, particularly in countries where regulatory approval and reimbursement schemes are in place. Part of the reason for this shift is that the CI is the only device capable of restoring bilateral input to the auditory system and hence of possibly reinstating binaural hearing. Although several studies have independently shown that the CI is a safe and effective treatment for SSD and AHL, clinical outcome measures in those studies and across CI centers vary greatly. Only with a consistent use of defined and agreed-upon outcome measures across centers can high-level evidence be generated to assess the safety and efficacy of CIs and alternative treatments in recipients with SSD and AHL.

Methods: This paper presents a comparative study design and minimum outcome measures for the assessment of current treatment options in patients with SSD/AHL. The protocol was developed, discussed, and eventually agreed upon by expert panels that convened at the 2015 APSCI conference in Beijing, China, and at the CI 2016 conference in Toronto, Canada.

Results: A longitudinal study design comparing CROS-HA, BCD, and CI treatments is proposed. The recommended outcome measures include (1) speech in noise testing, using the same set of 3 spatial configurations to compare binaural benefits such as summation, squelch, and head shadow across devices; (2) localization testing, using stimuli that rove in both level and spectral content; (3) questionnaires to collect quality of life measures and the frequency of device use; and (4) questionnaires for assessing the impact of tinnitus before and after treatment, if applicable.

Conclusion: A protocol for the assessment of treatment options and outcomes in recipients with SSD and AHL is presented. The proposed set of minimum outcome measures aims at harmonizing assessment methods across centers and thus at generating a growing body of high-level evidence for those treatment options.

Keywords: Asymmetric hearing loss; Bimodal stimulation; Bone conduction device; Bone-anchored hearing aid; Cochlear implant; Contralateral routing of signals hearing aid; Single-sided deafness; Testing method consensus; Unilateral hearing loss.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the proposed study design.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Test setup for sound localization measurement. The radius of the loudspeaker ring should be 1.5 m, if possible, but at least 1 m.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Magnitude responses of spectrally shaped CCITT noise stimuli used for localization.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Laszig R, Beck R, Schild C, Kroeger S, Ihorst G, Wesarg T. Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Otol Neurotol. 2011;32:39–47. - PubMed
    1. Arndt S, Laszig R, Aschendorff A, Hassepass F, Beck R, Wesarg T. Cochlear implant treatment of patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss. HNO. 2017 Epub ahead of print. - PubMed
    1. Bernstein JG, Goupell MJ, Schuchman GI, Rivera AL, Brungart DS. Having two ears facilitates the perceptual separation of concurrent talkers for bilateral and single-sided deaf cochlear implantees. Ear Hear. 2016;37:289–302. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bronkhorst AW, Plomp R. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences on speech intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;83:1508–1516. - PubMed
    1. Bruce I, Cooper H, Waltzman S, Schramm D, Graham J. Editorial maximising research value in the field of hearing implantation: a call for “big data”. Cochlear Implants Int. 2015;16:301–302. - PubMed

Publication types