Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.advisorBöke, Bilgehan
dc.contributor.authorErcan, Seda
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-18T10:04:30Z
dc.date.available2018-01-18T10:04:30Z
dc.date.issued2018-01-03
dc.date.submitted2018-01-03
dc.identifier.citation1. WHO M. Global estimates on prevalence of hearing loss. WHO, Geneva. 2012. 2. Kodera K, Hosoi H, Okamoto M, Manabe T, Kanda Y, Shiraishi K, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of hearing aid fitting (2010). Auris Nasus Larynx. 2016;43(3):217-28. 3. Ortmann A, Valente M. Recent advances in hearing aids. Disorders of Peripheral and Central Auditory Processing1: Disorders of Peripheral and Central Auditory Processing. 2013;10:333. 4. Arehart KH, Souza P, Baca R, Kates JM. Working memory, age and hearing loss: Susceptibility to hearing aid distortion. Ear and Hearing. 2013;34(3):251. 5. Panda G, Puhan N. An improved block adaptive system for effective feedback cancellation in hearing aids. Digital Signal Processing. 2016;48:216-25. 6. Kiessling J, Brenner B, Thunberg Jespersen C, Groth J, Jensen OD. Occlusion effect of earmolds with different venting systems. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2005;16(4):237-49. 7. By Manuela Eichner M, and Carol Meyers, AuD. The Vent Effect: New Solution Addresses Challenges When Fitting Custom Instruments. The Hearing Review. 2013. 8. Winkler A, Latzel M, Holube I. Open versus closed hearing-aid fittings: A literature review of both fitting approaches. Trends in hearing. 2016;20:2331216516631741. 9. San Milian A, Reyes A, Garcia-Valdecasas J. Subjective Patient Benefits from Hearing Aid Technology Developments in the Last 20 Years. Journal of Hearing Science. 2015;5(4). 10. Crichton N. Visual analogue scale (VAS). J Clin Nurs. 2001;10(5):706-6. 11. Lalwani AK, Castelein CM. Cracking the auditory genetic code: nonsyndromic hereditary hearing impairment. Otology & Neurotology. 1999;20(1):115-32. 12. Katz J, Burkard RF, Medwetsky L. Handbook of clinical audiology: Williams & Wilkins Baltimore; 1985. 13. O’Neill G, Summer L, Shirey L. Hearing loss: A growing problem that affects quality of life. Challenges for the 21st Century: Chronic and Disabling Conditions. 1999;2:1-6. 14. Moore BC. Cochlear hearing loss: physiological, psychological and technical issues: John Wiley & Sons; 2007. 66 15. Lin RJ, Krall R, Westerberg BD, Chadha NK, Chau JK. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the risk factors for sudden sensorineural hearing loss in adults. The Laryngoscope. 2012;122(3):624-35. 16. Munro KJ, Mueller HG. Clinical Verification of Hearing Aid Performance. Hearing Aids: Springer; 2016. p. 253-89. 17. Yamasoba T, Lin FR, Someya S, Kashio A, Sakamoto T, Kondo K. Current concepts in age-related hearing loss: epidemiology and mechanistic pathways. Hearing research. 2013;303:30-8. 18. Cooper Jr J. Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of 1971-75: Part I. Ear and race effects in hearing. J Am Acad Audiol. 1994;5(1):30-6. 19. Cruickshanks KJ, Klein R, Klein BE, Wiley TL, Nondahl DM, Tweed TS. Cigarette smoking and hearing loss: the epidemiology of hearing loss study. Jama. 1998;279(21):1715-9. 20. Curhan G, Curhan S. Epidemiology of Hearing Impairment. Hearing Aids: Springer; 2016. p. 21-58. 21. Fuente A, McPherson B. Organic solvents and hearing loss: The challenge for audiology: Los solventes orgánicos y los trastornos auditivos: El reto para la audiología. International Journal of Audiology. 2006;45(7):367-81. 22. Sliwinska-Kowalska M, Zamyslowska-Szmytke E, Szymczak W, Kotylo P, Fiszer M, Wesolowski W, et al. Effects of coexposure to noise and mixture of organic solvents on hearing in dockyard workers. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine. 2004;46(1):30-8. 23. Johnson A-C, Nylen PR. Effects of industrial solvents on hearing. Occupational medicine (Philadelphia, Pa). 1995;10(3):623. 24. Morata TC. Interaction between noise and asphyxiants: a concern for toxicology and occupational health. Toxicological sciences. 2002;66(1):1-3. 25. Fechter LD. Promotion of noise-induced hearing loss by chemical contaminants. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 2004;67(8-10):727-40. 26. Mattos LC, Veras RP. The prevalence of hearing loss in an elderly population in Rio de Janeiro: a cross-sectional study. Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. 2007;73(5):654-9. 27. Gates GA, Mills JH. Presbycusis. The Lancet. 2005;366(9491):1111-20. 28. Manchaiah V, Taylor B, Dockens AL, Tran NR, Lane K, Castle M, et al. Applications of direct-to-consumer hearing devices for adults with hearing loss: a review. Clinical interventions in aging. 2017;12:859. 67 29. Yadav S, Rawal G. Age related hearing loss-A review. Tropical Journal of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology. 2016;1(01). 30. Revuelta M, Santaolalla F, Arteaga O, Alvarez A, del Rey AS, Hilario E. Recent advances in cochlear hair cell regeneration—a promising opportunity for the treatment of age-related hearing loss. Ageing Research Reviews. 2017. 31. Helzner EP, Cauley JA, Pratt SR, Wisniewski SR, Zmuda JM, Talbott EO, et al. Race and sex differences in age‐related hearing loss: The Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2005;53(12):2119-27. 32. Chung K. Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids: Part I. Speech understanding in noise, microphone technologies and noise reduction algorithms. Trends in Amplification. 2004;8(3):83-124. 33. West RL, Smith SL. Development of a hearing aid self-efficacy questionnaire. International journal of audiology. 2007;46(12):759-71. 34. Negahban H, Nassadj G. Effect of hearing aids on static balance function in elderly with hearing loss. Gait & Posture. 2017;58:126-9. 35. Da HK, Lee JD, Lee HJ. Relationships among hearing loss, cognition and balance ability in community-dwelling older adults. Journal of physical therapy science. 2015;27(5):1539-42. 36. Haynes DS, Young JA, Wanna GB, Glasscock III ME. Middle ear implantable hearing devices: an overview. Trends in amplification. 2009;13(3):206-14. 37. (TÜİK) TİK. 2002 [http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1017 38. Prates LPCS, Iório MCM. Acclimatization: speech recognition in hearing aid users. Pró-Fono Revista de Atualização Científica. 2006;18(3):259-66.] 39. Maidment DW, Barker AB, Xia J, Ferguson MA. Effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids for adults with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol. BMJ open. 2016;6(10):e011683. 40. Laszig R. Asymmetric Hearing Loss. Audiology and Neurotology. 2011;16(Suppl. 1):3-25. 41. Turner JS, Per-Lee JH. Auditory Dysfunction: Hearing Loss. 1990. 42. Deutsch LJ, Richards AM. Elementary hearing science: University Park Press; 1979. 43. Cole EB, Flexer C. Children with hearing loss: Developing listening and talking, birth to six: Plural Publishing; 2015. 68 44. Gorlin RJ, Toriello HV, Cohen MM. Hereditary hearing loss and its syndromes: Oxford University Press, USA; 1995. 45. Banerjee S, Garstecki DC. Brief update on hearing aids. Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 2003;14(4):268-71. 46. Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard RF, Hood LJ. Handbook of clinical audiology: Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott William & Wilkins; 2009. 47. Sataloff R, Sataloff J. The nature of hearing loss. Occupational Hearing Loss (Taylor & Francis, Florida, 2006). 2006:19-20. 48. Hornsby BW. The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear and Hearing. 2013;34(5):523-34. 49. Hain TC, Index OE. Central Hearing Loss. URL: http://www/ dizziness-and-balance com/disorders/hearing/cent_ hearing html[Last retrieval August 18, 2011]. 2009. 50. Starr A, Picton TW, Sininger Y, Hood LJ, Berlin CI. Auditory neuropathy. Brain. 1996;119(3):741-53. 51. Manchaiah VK, Zhao F, Danesh AA, Duprey R. The genetic basis of auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD). International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology. 2011;75(2):151-8. 52. Ching TY, Day J, Dillon H, Gardner-Berry K, Hou S, Seeto M, et al. Impact of the presence of auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) on outcomes of children at three years of age. International journal of audiology. 2013;52(sup2):S55-S64. 53. Organization WH. Prevention of deafness and hearing impaired grades of hearing impairment. 2014. 54. Genther DJ, Betz J, Pratt S, Kritchevsky SB, Martin KR, Harris TB, et al. Association of hearing impairment and mortality in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2014;70(1):85-90. 55. Mathers C, Smith A, Concha M. Global burden of hearing loss in the year 2000. Global burden of Disease. 2000;18(4):1-30. 56. MacKenzie DJ. Open‐canal fittings and the hearing aid occlusion effect. The Hearing Journal. 2006;59(11):50-2. 57. Jorgensen LE. Verification and validation of hearing aids: Opportunity not an obstacle. Journal of Otology. 2016;11(2):57-62. 69 58. Lupsakko TA, Kautiainen HJ, Sulkava R. The non-use of hearing aids in people aged 75 years and over in the city of Kuopio in Finland. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Head & Neck. 2005;262(3):165-9. 59. Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: The SADL scale. Ear and hearing. 1999;20(4):306. 60. Kates JM, editor Feedback cancellation in hearing aids. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1990 ICASSP-90, 1990 International Conference on; 1990: IEEE. 61. Tate M. Principles of hearing aid audiology: Springer; 2013. 62. Moore BC, Popelka GR. Introduction to Hearing Aids. Hearing Aids: Springer; 2016. p. 1-19. 63. Kates JM. Digital hearing aids: Plural publishing; 2008. 64. Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VIII: Consumer satisfaction with hearing aids is slowly increasing. The Hearing Journal. 2010;63(1):19-20. 65. Fikret-Pasa S, Revit LJ. Individualized correction factors in the preselection of hearing aids. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1992;35(2):384-400. 66. Mueller HG, Picou EM. Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. The Hearing Journal. 2010;63(5):27-8. 67. Silman S, Silverman CA. Auditory diagnosis: principles and applications: Academic Press; 1991. 68. Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1978;63(2):533-49. 69. Keidser G, Carter L, Chalupper J, Dillon H. Effect of low-frequency gain and venting effects on the benefit derived from directionality and noise reduction in hearing aids. International Journal of Audiology. 2007;46(10):554-68. 70. Launer S, Zakis JA, Moore BC. Hearing Aid Signal Processing. Hearing Aids: Springer; 2016. p. 93-130. 71. Levitt H, Neuman A, Sullivan J. Studies with digital hearing aids. Acta oto-laryngologica Supplementum. 1990;469:57-69. 72. Gopinath B, Schneider J, Hartley D, Teber E, McMahon CM, Leeder SR, et al. Incidence and predictors of hearing aid use and ownership among older adults with hearing loss. Annals of epidemiology. 2011;21(7):497-506. 70 73. Dillon H, Harvey D. Hearing aid earmolds, earshells and coupling systems. Hearing aids. 2001:117-57. 74. Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VII: Customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. The Hearing Journal. 2005;58(9):30-2. 75. Stuart A, Allen R, Downs CR, Carpenter M. The Effects of Venting on In-the-Ear, In-the-Canal, and Completely-in-the-Canal Hearing Aid Shell Frequency ResponsesReal-Ear Measures. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1999;42(4):804-13. 76. Jespersen CT, Groth J. Vent is designed to reduce occlusion effect. The Hearing Journal. 2004;57(10):44-5. 77. Kuk F, Keenan D. How do vents affect hearing aid performance? Hearing Review. 2006;13(2):34. 78. Kuk F, Keenan D, Lau C-c. Vent configurations on subjective and objective occlusion effect. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2005;16(9):747-62. 79. Mackenzie K, Browning GG, McClymont LG. Relationship between earmould venting, comfort and feedback. British Journal of audiology. 1989;23(4):335-7. 80. Chisolm TH, Johnson CE, Danhauer JL, Portz LJ, Abrams HB, Lesner S, et al. A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force on the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in Adults. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2007;18(2):151-83. 81. Hickson L, Scarinci N, editors. Older adults with acquired hearing impairment: applying the ICF in rehabilitation. Seminars in speech and language; 2007: © Thieme Medical Publishers. 82. Newman CW, Sandridge SA. Benefit from, satisfaction with, and cost-effectiveness of three different hearing aid technologies. American Journal of Audiology. 1998;7(2):115-28. 83. Kuk F, Ludvigsen C, Paludan-Müller C. Improving hearing aid performance in noise: Challenges and strategies. The Hearing Journal. 2002;55(4):34-8. 84. Souza P. Speech Perception and Hearing Aids. Hearing Aids: Springer; 2016. p. 151-80. 85. ROSE BONGIOVANNI M. Principles of Postfitting. Textbook of Hearing Aid Amplification. 2000:439. 86. Keidser G, Alamudi K. Real-life efficacy and reliability of training a hearing aid. Ear and hearing. 2013;34(5):619-29. 71 87. Garstecki DC, Erler SF. Hearing loss, control, and demographic factors influencing hearing aid use among older adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1998;41(3):527-37. 88. Humes LE, Wilson DL, Humes L, Barlow NN, Garner CB, Amos N. A comparison of two measures of hearing aid satisfaction in a group of elderly hearing aid wearers. Ear and hearing. 2002;23(5):422-7. 89. Bamford J, Beresford D, Mencher G, DeVoe S, Owen V, Davis A, et al., editors. Provision and fitting of new technology hearing aids: Implications from a survey of some ‘good practice services’ in UK and USA. A sound foundation through early amplification: Proceedings of an international conference; 2002. 90. Kochkin S. MarkeTrak III: Why 20 Million In US Don't Use Hearing Aids For Their Hearing Loss-Part 1. Hearing journal. 1993;46:20-. 91. Chung K. Challenges and recent developments in hearing aids: Part II. Feedback and occlusion effect reduction strategies, laser shell manufacturing processes, and other signal processing technologies. Trends in Amplification. 2004;8(4):125-64. 92. Bustamante DK, Worrall TL, Williamson MJ, editors. Measurement and adaptive suppression of acoustic feedback in hearing aids. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1989 ICASSP-89, 1989 International Conference on; 1989: IEEE. 93. Kates JM. Feedback cancellation in hearing aids: Results from a computer simulation. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing. 1991;39(3):553-62. 94. Maxwell JA, Zurek PM. Reducing acoustic feedback in hearing aids. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing. 1995;3(4):304-13. 95. Panda G, Puhan N. Individual-activation-factor based novel approach for acoustic feedback suppression in hearing aid. Applied Acoustics. 2017;127:74-9. 96. Siqueira MG, Alwan A. Steady-state analysis of continuous adaptation in acoustic feedback reduction systems for hearing-aids. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing. 2000;8(4):443-53. 97. Munro KJ, Toal S. Measuring the real-ear to coupler difference transfer function with an insert earphone and a hearing instrument: Are they the same? Ear and Hearing. 2005;26(1):27-34. 98. Bagatto M, Moodie S. Learning the art to apply the science: Common questions related to pediatric hearing instrument fitting. Audiology Online. 2007. 99. Dillon H, Keidser G. Is probe‐mic measurement of HA gain‐frequency response best practice? The Hearing Journal. 2003;56(10):28-30. 72 100. Aazh H, Moore BC, Prasher D. Real ear measurement methods for open fit hearing aids: Modified pressure concurrent equalization (MPCE) versus modified pressure stored equalization (MPSE). International journal of audiology. 2012;51(2):103-7. 101. Holube I, Fredelake S, Vlaming M, Kollmeier B. Development and analysis of an international speech test signal (ISTS). International Journal of Audiology. 2010;49(12):891-903. 102. Aarts NL, Caffee CS. Manufacturer predicted and measured REAR values in adult hearing aid fitting: Accuracy and clinical usefulness. International Journal of Audiology. 2005;44(5):293-301. 103. Aazh H, Moore BC. The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2007;18(8):653-64. 104. Moore BC, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. Development of a new method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF. International Journal of Audiology. 2010;49(3):216-27. 105. Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Research. 2011;1(1). 106. Baker S, Jenstad L. Matching real-ear targets for adult hearing aid fittings: NAL-NL1 and DSL v5. 0 prescriptive formulae. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY AND AUDIOLOGY. 2017;41(2):227-35. 107. Moore BC, Baer T, Ives DT, Marriage J, Salorio-Corbetto M. Effects of Modified Hearing Aid Fittings on Loudness and Tone Quality for Different Acoustic Scenes. Ear and hearing. 2016;37(4):483-91. 108. Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L, Moodie S, Bagatto M, Laurnagaray D, et al. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends in amplification. 2005;9(4):159-97. 109. Byrne D, Dillon H, Ching T, Katsch R, Keidser G. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2001;12(1). 110. Dillon H. NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids. The Hearing Journal. 1999;52(4):10-2. 111. Kirkwood DH. Survey: Dispensers fitted more hearing aids in 2005 at higher prices. The Hearing Journal. 2006;59(4):40. 112. Beck D. Do real-ear measurements make a real difference to patient outcomes. Available at: www^ udioIogy org/news/interviews/Pages/20090119a aspx(accessed 0903 10). 2010. 73 113. Cox RM. Assessment of subjective outcome of hearing aid fitting: getting the client's point of view. International Journal of Audiology. 2003;42(sup1):90-6. 114. Martin FN, Clark JG. Introduction to audiology: Allyn and bacon Boston; 1997. 115. Goetzinger C. The psychology of hearing impairment. Handbook of clinical audiology Baltimore (MD): Williams and Wilkins. 1972. 116. Association AS-L-H. Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. 2005. 117. Downs DW. OF HEARING AID USE ON SPEECH DISCRIMINATION AND LISTENING EFFORT. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 1982;47:189-93. 118. Roeser RJ, Buckley KA, Stickney GS, Valente M, Hossford-Dunn H. Pure tone tests. Audiology diagnosis. 2000;2:252-3. 119. Perez E, Edmonds BA. A systematic review of studies measuring and reporting hearing aid usage in older adults since 1999: a descriptive summary of measurement tools. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e31831. 120. Whitmer WM, Wright-Whyte KF, Holman JA, Akeroyd MA. Hearing aid validation. Hearing Aids: Springer; 2016. p. 291-321. 121. Gatehouse S. Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;10(80):103. 122. Newman CW, Weinstein BE. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly as a Measure: of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear and hearing. 1988;9(2):81-5. 123. Singer J, Healy J, Preece J. Hearing Instruments: A psychologic and behavioral perspective. High Performance Hearing Solutions. 1997;1:23-7. 124. Mueller GH, Palmer CV. The Profile of Aided Loudness: A new" PAL" for'98. The Hearing Journal. 1998;51(1):10-2. 125. Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: Normative data for the client oriented scale. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 1999;10(2):67-79. 126. Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. JOURNAL-AMERICAN ACADEMY OF AUDIOLOGY. 1997;8:27-43. 127. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear and hearing. 1995;16(2):176-86. 74 128. Uriarte M, Denzin L, Dunstan A, Sellars J, Hickson L. Measuring hearing aid outcomes using the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire: Australian data. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2005;16(6):383-402. 129. Kramer SE, Goverts ST, Dreschler WA, Boymans M, Festen JM. International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): results from the Netherlands: El Inventario Internacional de Resultados para Auxiliares Auditivos (IOI-HA): resultados en los Países Bajos. International Journal of Audiology. 2002;41(1):36-41. 130. Cox RM. Administration and application of the APHAB. The Hearing Journal. 1997;50(4):32-5. 131. Stephens D, Hétu R. Impairment, disability and handicap in audiology: towards a consensus. Taylor & Francis; 1991. 132. Scott J, Huskisson E. Vertical or horizontal visual analogue scales. Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 1979;38(6):560. 133. Lee KA, Kieckhefer GM. Measuring human responses using visual analogue scales. Western Journal of Nursing Research. 1989;11(1):128-32. 134. Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Research in nursing & health. 1990;13(4):227-36. 135. Taylor B. Real‐world satisfaction and benefit with open‐canal fittings. The Hearing Journal. 2006;59(11):74-6. 136. Irwin R, McAuley S. Relations among temporal acuity, hearing loss, and the perception of speech distorted by noise and reverberation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1987;81(5):1557-65. 137. Gnewikow D, Moss M. Hearing aid outcomes with open‐and closed‐canal fittings. The Hearing Journal. 2006;59(11):66-8. 138. Johnson EE. Segmenting dispensers: Factors in selecting open‐canal fittings. The Hearing Journal. 2006;59(11):58-60. 139. Revit L. Two techniques for dealing with the occlusion effect. Hearing Instruments. 1992;43:16-. 140. Dillon H. Hearing aids. Sydney: Boomerang Press; 2012.136-157 141. Grover B, Martin M. On the Practical Gain Limit for Post'aural Hearing Aids. British Journal of Audiology. 1974;8(4):121-4. 142. Zemplenyi J, Gilman S, Dirks D. Optical method for measurement of ear canal length. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1985;78(6):2146-8. 75 143. Hawkins D, Alvarez E, Houlihan J. Reliability of three types of probe tube microphone measurements. Hearing Instruments. 1991;42(3):14-6. 144. Dirks DD, Ahlstrom J, Eisenberg L. Comparison of probe insertion methods on estimates of ear canal SPL. JOURNAL-AMERICAN ACADEMY OF AUDIOLOGY. 1996;7:31-8. 145. Institute) AANS. ANSI S3.46. Methods of Measurement of Real-Ear Performance Characteristics of Hearing Aids. 2003:New York: American National Standards Institute. 146. Löhler J, Akcicek B, Kappe T, Wollenberg B, Schlattmann P, Schönweiler R. The influence of hearing loss represented by standard audiogram types to unaided APHAB scores. Laryngo-rhino-otologie. 2016;95(8):540-5. 147. Löhler J, Gräbner F, Wollenberg B, Schlattmann P, Schönweiler R. Sensitivity and specificity of the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB). European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2017;274(10):3593-8. 148. Hauptmann C, Williams M, Vinciati F, Haller M. Technical Feasibility of Acoustic Coordinated Reset Therapy for Tinnitus Delivered via Hearing Aids: A Case Study. Case reports in otolaryngology. 2017;2017. 149. Browning GG, Howell P, Whitmer WM, Ftouh S, Chong LY, Naylor G. Unilateral versus bilateral hearing aids for bilateral hearing impairment in adults. The Cochrane Library. 2017. 150. Lee K, Casali JG, editors. Investigation of the auditory occlusion effect with implications for hearing protection and hearing aid design. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; 2011: SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA. 151. Zwislocki J. Acoustic attenuation between the ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1953;25(4):752-9. 152. Killion MC, editor Earmold acoustics. Seminars in Hearing; 2003: Copyright© 2003 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.:+ 1 (212) 584-4662. 153. Cortez R, Dinulescu N, Skafte K, Olson B, Keenan D, Kuk F. Changing with the times: applying digital technology to hearing aid shell manufacturing. Hearing Review. 2004;11(3):30-41.tr_TR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11655/4193
dc.description.abstractErcan, S. The Effect Of Double Vent On Patient Satisfaction Of Ear Mold. Hacettepe University Institute Of Health Sciences, Master Thesis In Audiology And Speech Patology Program, Ankara, 2018. The hearing aid is the most suitable amplification method especially for the hearing loss affected by the inner ear. A suitable hearing aid should be able to deliver quality sound to the ear by providing the benefit needed by the individual at the frequencies at which hearing loss occurs. It is the most ideal hearing aid in terms of the type, grade and configuration of hearing loss and is an important step for choosing the right pattern. Ventilation opening to the ear mold is determined according to hearing loss as well as selection according to patient comfort. Our study aimed to demonstrate the effect of hearing aids on audiologic evaluations of single and double opening ventilation tubes suitable for ear molds and patient satisfaction. For this purpose, audiological measurements and REM evaluations of 30 patients (50 ears) using bilateral hearing aid with sensorineural hearing loss were performed bilaterally, APHAB questionnaire and VAS scale were applied and the results were compared between single ventilation and double ventilation. As a result of the study, there was no statistically significant difference between free field thresholds and speech discrimination scores (p> 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the REAR measurements (p> 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference (p <0.01) between the unaided and the single vent, double-vented aid in the APHAB satisfaction questionnaire (p <0.01), but no significant difference was observed between single vent and double vent applications (p> 0.01). APHAB subscales showed a strong correlation between positive ventilation and ventilation (p <0.01). Moreover, the results were statistically significant in the VAS scale, which is a subjective evaluation (p <0.05). Our findings show that the double ventilated earmolds did not affect the satisfaction with the aided free field hearing thresholds, speech scores, REM values and APHAB satisfaction questionnaire, however, satisfaction with the patients seems to increase with the VAS assessment scale. Keywords: Hearing Aid, Earmold, Double Vent, APHAB, VAStr_TR
dc.description.tableofcontentsONAY iii YAYIMLAMA VE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI BEYAN iv ETİK BEYAN v TEŞEKKÜR vi ÖZET vii ABSTRACT viii İÇİNDEKİLER ix SİMGELER VE KISALTMALAR xii ŞEKİLER xiv TABLOLAR xv 1. GİRİŞ 1 2. GENEL BİLGİLER 3 2.1. İşitme ve İşitme Kaybı Risk Faktörleri 3 2.2. İşitme Kaybının Epidemiyolojisi ve Cihaz Kullanımı 4 2.3. İşitme Kaybı Tipleri 5 2.3.1. İletim Tipi İşitme Kayıpları (İTİK) 6 2.3.2. Mikst İşitme Kayıpları 6 2.3.3. Sensörinöral İşitme Kayıpları 6 2.3.4. Fonksiyonel İşitme Kayıpları 7 2.3.5. Santral İşitme Kayıpları 7 2.3.6. İşitsel Nöropati Spektrum Bozukluğu (ANSD) 7 2.3.7. İşitme Kaybı Dereceleri 7 2.4. İletişim ve Cihazlanmanın Önemi 8 2.5. İşitme Cihazları 9 2.5.1. İşitme Cihazı Tipleri 10 2.5.2. İşitme Cihazı Seçimi ve Kullanımı 11 2.5.3. Kulak Kalıpları 13 2.5.4. Ventilasyonun Belirlenmesi 14 2.5.5. Cihazlanma Sonrası Yaşanılan Zorluklar 16 2.5.6. İşitme Cihazı Sinyal İşlemleme 18 2.6. İşitme Cihazının Klinik Doğrulama ve Onaylama Yöntemleri 21 x 2.6.1. Coupler Ölçümleri 22 2.6.2. Gerçek Kulak Ölçümleri (REM) Değerlendirmesi 22 2.6.3. Serbest Alan Eşikleri ve Konuşma Testlerinin Değerlendirilmesi 25 2.6.4. Memnuniyet Anketlerinin Sınıflandırması 26 3. BİREYLER VE YÖNTEM 30 3.1. Bireyler 30 3.1.1. Araştırmaya Dahil Olma Kriterleri 31 3.1.2. Araştırmadan Dışlama Kriterleri 32 3.2. Yöntem 32 3.2.1. Saf Ses Odyometrik Değerlendirme 32 3.2.2. Konuşma Odyometrisi Değerlendirmesi 33 3.2.3. Serbest Alan Değerlendirmeleri 33 3.2.4. İmmitansmetrik Değerlendirme 33 3.2.5. İşitme Cihazı ve Ventilasyonun Belirlenmesi 33 3.2.6. REM Değerlendirmesi 34 3.2.7. APHAB Anket Uygulaması 35 3.2.8. VAS (Visual Analogue Scales) Uygulaması 35 3.2.9. Verilerin İstatistiksel Analizi 36 4. BULGULAR 38 4.1. Demografik Bilgiler 38 4.2. Odyolojik Verilerin Sonuçları 38 4.3. Konuşmayı Ayırt Etme Skorları 41 4.4. REM Değerleri 42 4.5. APHAB Anketi Uygulaması Sonuçları 44 4.6. VAS Uygulaması Sonuçları 50 5. TARTIŞMA 52 6. SONUÇ VE ÖNERİLER 62 7. KAYNAKLAR 65 8. EKLER EK-1: Tez Çalışması ile ilgili Etik Kurul İzinleri Ek-2: APHAB Memnuniyet Anketi Ek-3: Çalışmamızda Kullanılan VAS Değerlendirmesi xi 9. ÖZGEÇMİŞtr_TR
dc.language.isoturtr_TR
dc.publisherSağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsütr_TR
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesstr_TR
dc.subjectİşitme Cihazıtr_TR
dc.subjectKulak Kalıbıtr_TR
dc.subjectÇift Venttr_TR
dc.subjectAPHABtr_TR
dc.subjectVAStr_TR
dc.titleİşitme Cihazı Kalıbında Çift Ventin Hasta Memnuniyeti Üzerine Etkisitr_TR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesistr_TR
dc.description.ozetERCAN, S. İşitme Cihazı Kalıbında Çift Ventin Hasta Memnuniyeti Üzerine Etkisi Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Odyoloji ve Konuşma Bozuklukları Programı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara, 2018. İşitme cihazı özellikle iç kulağın etkilendiği işitme kayıpları için en uygun amplifikasyon yöntemidir. Uygun bir işitme cihazı, bireyin işitme kaybının olduğu frekanslarda ihtiyacı olan kazancı sağlayarak kulağa kaliteli ses iletebilmelidir. İşitme kaybının tipi, derecesi ve konfigürasyonu açısından en ideal işitme cihazı ve uygun kalıp seçimi önemlidir. Kulak kalıbına ventilasyon açma işlemi işitme kaybına göre belirlendiği gibi hasta konforuna göre seçimi de önemlidir. Çalışmamız, işitme cihazı kullanan bireylerin kulak kalıbına uygun tek ve çift açılan ventilasyonun akustik etkilerini ve hasta memnuniyeti üzerine etkisini göstermeyi amaçlamıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda bilateral orta derecede sensörinöral işitme kaybına sahip işitme cihazı kullanan 30 hastanın (50 kulak) odyolojik ölçümleri ve REM değerlendirmeleri yapılıp, APHAB anketi ve VAS ölçeği uygulanılarak sonuçlar tek ventli kullanım ile çift ventli kullanımları karşılaştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda serbest alan eşiklerinde ve konuşmayı ayırt etme skorlarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmamıştır (p>0,05), REM uygulamasında cihaz kazancının değişmediği gözlenmiştir, REAR ölçümlerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark gözlenmemiştir (p>0,05). Yapılan APHAB memnuniyet anketinde tek vent ile cihazsız, çift vent ile cihazsız karşılaştırmalarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark gözlenmiştir (p<0,01), ancak tek vent ve çift vent uygulaması arasında anlamlı fark gözlenmemiştir (p>0,01). APHAB alt ölçeklerinin tek vent ve çift vent arasında pozitif yönde güçlü bir korelasyon bulunmuştur (p<0,01). Bununla birlikte öznel bir değerlendirme olan VAS ölçeğinde sonuçların istatistiksel olarak anlamlı çıktığı gözlenmiştir (p<0,05). Elde ettiğimiz bulgular hastaların çift ventli kulak kalıplarının tek vente göre cihazlı serbest alan işitme eşiklerini, konuşma skorlarını, REM değerlerini ve APHAB memnuniyet anketi ile memnuniyeti etkilemediği, ancak VAS değerlendirme ölçeği ile hastalarda memnuniyetin arttığı görülmektedir.tr_TR
dc.contributor.departmentOdyolojitr_TR
dc.contributor.authorID100462tr_TR


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster