View clinical trials related to Hearing Loss, Bilateral.
Filter by:Part A of this trial will evaluate the safety and tolerability of a single unilateral administration of one of two dose levels of AAVAnc80-hOTOF and will evaluate the Akouos delivery device to safely achieve the intended product performance.
The objective of this study is to identify possible preoperative risk factors including genetic background and to suggest the optimal test battery of vestibular function in cochlear implant recipients
The purpose of this exploratory study is to trial various objective and behavioural fitting methods for potential use with Focused Multipolar Stimulation programming.
Brief Summary: Main objective: Comparison of a tonotopy based fitting strategy (TFS) with fine structure coding to a tonotopy based fitting strategy without fine structure coding (TnoFS) for speech perception in noise. Secondary objectives: Comparison of TFS to TnoFS for the perception of musical elements (contour test). Comparison of TFS to TnoFS for speech perception in quiet Comparison of TFS to TnoFS for the qualitative preference for the listening of musical pieces. Comparison of TFS to TnoFS for the melodic recognition
The purpose of this study is to evaluate, via a randomised controlled design, the efficacy of the robotic insertion of cochlear implant, versus manual insertion. Robotic insertion will be performed using Robotol. This is a three years interventional study involving adults with profound bilateral hearing loss. Eligible subjects will be randomized in two groups : robotic insertion, or manual insertion. Each patient will be followed during 12 months.
The investigation proposes to compare a narrow reference beamformer to a novel beamformer approach, when the talker is not in front of the hearing aid user and in the presence of background noise. The beamformer effect will be determined in terms of speech intelligibility, listening effort and ability to multitask when the talkers are located on the side or in the back.
Adjusting hearing aid user's real ear performance by using probe-microphone technology (real ear measurement, REM) has been a well-known procedure that verifies whether the output of the hearing aid at the eardrum matches the desired prescribed target. Still less than half of audiologists verify hearing aid fitting to match the prescribed target amplification with this technology. Recent studies have demonstrated failures to match the prescribed amplification targets, using exclusively the predictions of the proprietary software. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and American Academy of Audiology (AAA) have created Best Practice Guidelines that recommend using real-ear measurement (REM) over initial fit approach and also the recent ISO 21388:2020 on hearing aid fitting management recommends the routine use of REM. Still audiologists prefer to rely on the manufacturer's default "first-fit" settings because of the lack of proof over cost-effectiveness and patient outcome in using REM. There are only few publications of varying levels of evidence indicating benefits of REM-fitted hearing aids with respect to patient outcomes that include self-reported listening ability, speech intelligibility in quiet and noise and patients' preference. Our main research question is whether REM-based fitting improves the patient reported outcome measures - PROMs (SSQ, HERE) and performance-based outcome measures (speech-reception threshold in noise) over initial fit approach. An additional research question is whether REM-based fitting improves hearing aid usage (self-reported & log-data report). Eventually, the investigators will calculate the cost-effectiveness of REM-based fitting.
This trial is a monocentric, prospective and controlled study of the pupil response to detect hearing threshold and comfortable loudness of normal-hearing (NH) and CI-subjects.
This is a retrospective and prospective longitudinal study in participants with Otoferlin Gene-Mediated Hearing Loss.
The specific aims of the research study are: 1. Compare single-task gait parameters between individuals with hearing loss (HL) and age and education matched controls with normal hearing [normal vs moderate-profound hearing loss (N=23 for each group)]. For that we will compare the primary outcome measure, gait speed, between the groups while participants are walking at a comfortable speed for 1 minute. 2. Compare cognitive function between individuals with HL and age and education matched controls. For that we will compare the Neurocognitive Index, derived from a cognitive assessment between groups. 3. Compare the effect of a cognitive task while walking on gait parameters between people with HL and age education matched controls with normal hearing. For that we will compare the primary outcome measure, gait speed, between groups while participants are walking at a comfortable speed and counting backwards [serial subtraction of 3] for 1 minute. 4. Explore whether cognitive performance (i.e., the Neurocognitive Index) is correlated with Dual task cost (DTC), a deterioration of gait speed while walking and performing concurrent cognitive task [serial subtraction of 3]. The formula to calculate this is the following: DTC = 100 X [(DT - single task)/ single task].