• Int. J. Clin. Pract. · Apr 2021

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Effect of hearing aids on attention, memory, and auditory evoked potentials: a pragmatic, single-blinded, and randomized pilot clinical trial.

    • Danilo Euclides Fernandes, Mastroianni Kirsztajn Gianna G https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1317-4109 Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil., and Katia de Almeida.
    • Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil.
    • Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2021 Apr 1; 75 (4): e13953.

    PurposeTo compare the effects of hearing aids and their technology levels (premium and basic) on attention, memory, brain response, and self-perceived benefit amongst individuals who were naïve to sound amplification.Material And MethodsA pragmatic, single-blinded, and randomised pilot clinical trial in three-parallel arms according to hearing aids technology: (a) premium; (b) basic; and (c) no amplification hearing devices. Participants were ≥60 years old with mild-to-moderate sensorineural symmetric hearing loss and naïve to sound amplification. We tested attention and memory skills, as well as brain response and self-perceived benefit before and after 12 weeks of using the hearing devices. The primary outcome was any improvement in the tests we performed.ResultsThe participants who missed the follow-up (n = 2) were excluded from our final analysis. We ended up with 22 patients (A = 8, B = 6, and C = 8) who were 80.4 (±6.1) years old, predominantly female (63.63%), and poorly educated (3.8 ± 1.6 years). After the intervention, we observed differences in attention and memory scores (reverse counting, P < .01, 95% CI 2.2; 11.63; digit sequence repetition, P = .03, 95% CI -1.9; -0.05; delayed recall, P = .03, 95% CI -1.2; -0.05; recognition, P < .01, 95% CI -2.6; -0.45; and visual memory, P < .01, 95% CI -0.9; -0.15), but only reverse counting (A vs C, P < .01,95% CI 5.9; 20.55) and recognition (B vs C, P < .01, 95% CI -6.1; -0.88) were observed in pairwise comparisons. The difference in N1 wave latency (/g/ sound, P = .01,95% CI 2.1; 18.59) could not be confirmed in pairwise comparison. The self-perceived benefit questionnaire revealed no difference between groups A and B; the groups A and C differed in benefit (P < .01, 95% CI -2.2; -0.76), satisfaction (P = .02,95% CI -2.0;-0.21), residual participation restrictions (P = .01, 95% CI -2.9; -0.38), and quality of life (P = .03, 95% CI -1.4; -0.08); the groups B and C differed in benefit (P < .001, 95% CI -2.3; -0.96), and satisfaction (P = .01,95% CI -2.1; -0.29).ConclusionIn this study, premium and basic hearing aids impacted attention, memory, brain response, and self-perceived benefit similarly amongst individuals who were naïve to sound amplification after 12 weeks of using the hearing devices.© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…