Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Force-System Resultants and Equilibrium
Published in Richard C. Dorf, The Engineering Handbook, 2018
Noise-induced hearing loss has been identified as one of the top ten occupational hazards by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition to hearing loss, exposure to excessive amounts of noise can increase worker stress levels, interfere with communication, disrupt concentration, reduce learning potential, adversely affect job performance, and increase accident potential [Mansdorf, 1993]. Among many types of hearing loss, sensorineural hearing loss is the most common form in occupational environments. Sensorineural hearing loss is usually caused by the loss of ability of the inner ear (cochlea nerve endings) to receive and transmit noise vibrations to the brain. In this case, the middle ear (the bone structures of maleus, incus, and stapes) and the outer ear (ear drum, ear canal, and ear lobe) may be intact.
Disorders of Hearing
Published in Anthony N. Nicholson, The Neurosciences and the Practice of Aviation Medicine, 2017
Linda M. Luxon, Ronald Hinchcliffe
Sensorineural hearing loss in association with bacterial meningitis is well documented, and treatment with antibiotics and adjuvant corticosteroids results in lower rates of mortality, long term neurological sequelae and severe hearing loss (Van de Beek et al., 2003). Tuberculous meningitis is now rare in Western societies, but should be considered in immigrant, debilitated, alcoholic and immunologically suppressed populations (Kotnis and Simo, 2001). Lyme disease is a tic-borne infection with the spirochaete Borrelia burgdorferi. Elevated antibodies to borrelia antigen were found in 17 per cent of patients with a unilateral sudden or fluctuating sensorineural hearing loss, and approximately one-third improved with intravenous penicillin (Hanner et al., 1989). This is a treatable cause of sensorineural hearing loss (Peltomaa et al., 2000).
Music perception and training for pediatric cochlear implant users
Published in Expert Review of Medical Devices, 2020
Hearing loss is one of the most common and undertreated medical conditions worldwide, with an estimated 466 million people (5% of the world’s population) reporting disabling hearing impairment[1]. It has been estimated that by 2050, over 900 million people will be affected[1]. The implications are significant. Currently, unaddressed hearing loss poses an annual global cost of 750 USD billion dollars. Clinically, untreated hearing loss increases the risk of depression [2,3], social isolation [2,4], unemployment [5], cognitive decline [2,3], and falls [6]. Hearing aids are often the long-term treatment for people with sensorineural hearing loss. For a subset of the population who may no longer benefit from hearing aids due to the severity of their hearing impairment, cochlear implants (CIs) are an excellent option.
“Do You See What I Hear?”: Designing for Collocated Patient–Practitioner Collaboration in Audiological Consultations
Published in Human–Computer Interaction, 2018
Yngve Dahl, Geir Kjetil Hanssen
Hearing aids are the most common treatment option for a person with sensorineural hearing loss, i.e., reduced hearing that results from damage to sensory cells (hair cells) in the inner ear. A hearing aid is an electronic sound amplification device that can be attached in or behind the ear, and that has the potential to compensate for impaired hearing by amplifying specific segments of the sound spectrum, and other forms of advanced corrections. While there are many different types of hearing aids, modern hearing aids consist of three basic electronic components: a microphone, an amplifier, and a loudspeaker (Elberling & Worsoe, 2006). The hearing aid receives sound waves through the microphone, which converts them to electrical signals, and transmits them to the amplifier. The amplifier increases the power of the signals and sends them, via a speaker, to the inner ear. The amplified sound is then detected by intact hair cells and converted into electrical signals, which are conveyed by the auditory nerve to the brain. The brain then interprets the signals as meaningful sound.
Effect of ossicular chain deformity on reverse stimulation considering the overflow characteristics of third windows
Published in Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2022
Houguang Liu, Lin Xue, Jianhua Yang, Gang Cheng, Lei Zhou, Xinsheng Huang
Hearing loss is one of the most prevalent diseases all over the world. With the growth and aging of the global population, the number of people with hearing loss is increasing rapidly. As the primary type of hearing loss, the sensorineural hearing loss still lacks effective treatment. Most patients can only use hearing aids to compensate for hearing loss (Moore 2007). However, traditional hearing aids have a series of inherent problems such as acoustic feedback, limited high-frequency gain, and ear canal occlusion (Angeli et al. 2005; Hong et al. 2007). Besides, for some patients with ossicular chain deformity (OCD), in which the sound wave cannot transmit efficiently from the tympanic membrane to the cochlea, hearing aids cannot be used to compensate for hearing loss (Colletti et al. 2013). In response to this problem, Colletti et al. (2006) proposed a method of coupling the actuator of the middle ear implant with the round window membrane to treat hearing loss. This application of the middle ear implant is also called reverse stimulation (Stieger et al. 2013), as its sound transmission path in the ear is opposite to that of the normal hearing process, in which the sound is transmitted to the cochlea through the oval window rather than the round window. Under this stimulation, the actuator transmits its vibrational energy directly into the cochlea by stimulating the round window membrane, bypassing the damaged ossicular chain. Clinical results indicate that it can effectively compensate for this kind of hearing loss (Schraven et al. 2012; Maier et al. 2013; Shin et al. 2016). However, its postoperative outcomes show large variations among patients (Sprinzl et al. 2011).