Affiliations: [a] Department of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada | [b] Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration, Québec City, QC, Canada | [c] Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux (CIUSSS) de la Capitale-Nationale, Québec City, QC, Canada
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Mathieu Hotton, Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration, Québec City, Québec, G1M 2S8, Canada. Tel.: +1 418 5299141 ext. 6704. E-mail: mathieu.hotton.1@ulaval.ca.
Abstract: 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-transposition (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.
Keywords: High-frequency hearing loss, hearing aids, frequency-lowering, cochlear implants, electric acoustic stimulation, qualitative research
