Ear and Hearing (Ear Hear)

Publisher: American Auditory Society, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins

Journal description

From the basic science of hearing to auditory electrophysiology to amplification and the psychological factors of hearing loss, Ear and Hearing covers all aspects of auditory disorders. This multidisciplinary journal consolidates the various factors that contribute to identification, remediation, and audiologic rehabilitation. It is the one journal that serves the diverse interest of all members of this professional community-- otologigts, educators, and to those involved in the design, manufacture, and distribution of amplification systems. The original articles published in the journal focus on assessment, diagnosis, and management of auditory disorders.

Current impact factor: 2.83

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2015
2013 / 2014 Impact Factor 2.833
2012 Impact Factor 3.262
2011 Impact Factor 2.578
2010 Impact Factor 2.257
2009 Impact Factor 2.091
2008 Impact Factor 2.182
2007 Impact Factor 2.057
2006 Impact Factor 1.858
2005 Impact Factor 2.255
2004 Impact Factor 2.302
2003 Impact Factor 1.45
2002 Impact Factor 1.281
2001 Impact Factor 1.321
2000 Impact Factor 1.506
1999 Impact Factor 1.169
1998 Impact Factor 1.037
1997 Impact Factor 1.591

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 3.27
Cited half-life 8.10
Immediacy index 0.67
Eigenfactor 0.01
Article influence 1.26
Website Ear and Hearing website
Other titles Ear and hearing
ISSN 0196-0202
OCLC 5731857
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author cannot archive a post-print version
  • Restrictions
    • 12 months embargo
  • Conditions
    • Some journals have separate policies, please check with each journal directly
    • Pre-print must be removed upon acceptance for publication
    • Post-print may be deposited in personal website or institutional repository
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Must include statement that it is not the final published version
    • Published source must be acknowledged with full citation
    • Set statement to accompany deposit
    • Must link to publisher version
    • NIH authors will have their accepted manuscripts transmitted to PubMed Central on their behalf after a 12 months embargo (see policy for details)
    • Wellcome Trust and HHMI authors will have their accepted manuscripts transmitted to PubMed Central on their behalf after a 6 months embargo (see policy for details)
    • Publisher last reviewed on 19/03/2015
  • Classification
    ​ yellow

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Currently, six genes are known to be associated with Usher syndrome type I, and mutations in most of these genes can also cause nonsyndromic hearing loss. The one exception is USH1G, which is currently only known to be involved in Usher syndrome type I and atypical Usher syndrome. Design: A Dutch family with autosomal recessively inherited hearing loss was examined. Audiometric, ophthalmic, and vestibular evaluations were performed besides the genetic analysis. Results: The hearing loss had an early onset with a downsloping audiogram configuration. Slight progression of the hearing loss was seen in both affected individuals. Compound heterozygous mutations in USH1G were found to segregate with the hearing loss in this family, a missense (c.310A>G, p.Met104Val) and a frameshift mutation (c.780insGCAC, p.Tyr261Alafs*96). Extensive ophthalmic and vestibular examinations demonstrated no abnormalities that are usually associated with Usher syndrome type I. Conclusions: This is the first family presented with nonsyndromic hearing loss caused by mutations in USH1G. Our findings expand the phenotypic spectrum of mutations in USH1G.
    Ear and Hearing 03/2015; 36(2):205-211.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dual sensory loss (DSL; concurrent vision and hearing loss) negatively affects quality of life. As speechreading is hampered, use of hearing aids (HAs) is important for older adults with DSL. However, due to vision loss, use of small and complex HAs is assumed to be difficult. An integrative DSL protocol that addresses rehabilitative care for older adults with DSL, including proper HA use, was implemented in low vision rehabilitation centers. The present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the DSL protocol among HA owners on HA outcomes (i.e., HA use, benefit, satisfaction with HAs, and hearing with HAs). In a randomized controlled trial, the DSL protocol was compared to a waiting list control group among clients (aged ≥50 years) of low vision rehabilitation centers with DSL. The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and the HA Fitting Questionnaire (HAFQ) were administered at baseline and 3 months follow-up. Participants (n = 128) were randomly allocated to either the intervention (n = 63) or control group (n = 65). Intention-to-treat analyses showed a near significant effect on IOI-HA Residual problems (effect size, 0.35; p = 0.063). Per-protocol analyses showed similar (nonsignificant) results on the main outcomes, and a ceiling effect was found on the HAFQ. Significant effects were found in subgroups of patients: among patients with low HAFQ scores (HAFQ-Use: effect size = 0.56, p = 0.046; HAFQ-Hearing with HAs: effect size = 0.64, p = 0.019), male participants (effect size = 0.80; p = 0.003), and those with moderate hearing loss (effect size = 0.72; p = 0.028), significantly better IOI-HA scores were found in the intervention group at 3 months follow-up. Although the per-protocol and subgroup analyses need to be interpreted with caution, DSL patients who experience HA difficulties could benefit from the DSL protocol by making better use of their HAs. The increasing prevalence and impact of DSL on a person's independence and social participation call for more awareness of concurrent sensory impairments in both low vision and audiology rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary training for rehabilitation professionals could be an important step, followed by integration of vision and hearing services using the DSL protocol.
    Ear and Hearing 02/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000153
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To study normative thresholds and latencies for click and tone-burst auditory brainstem response (TB-ABR) for air and bone conduction in normal infants and those discharged from neonatal intensive care units, who passed newborn hearing screening and follow-up distortion product otoacoustic emission. An evoked potential system (Vivosonic Integrity) that incorporates Bluetooth electrical isolation and Kalman-weighted adaptive processing to improve signal to noise ratios was employed for this study. Results were compared with other published data. One hundred forty-five infants who passed two-stage hearing screening with transient-evoked otoacoustic emission or automated auditory brainstem response were assessed with clicks at 70 dB nHL and threshold TB-ABR. Tone bursts at frequencies between 500 and 4000 Hz were used for air and bone conduction auditory brainstem response testing using a specified staircase threshold search to establish threshold levels and wave V peak latencies. Median air conduction hearing thresholds using TB-ABR ranged from 0 to 20 dB nHL, depending on stimulus frequency. Median bone conduction thresholds were 10 dB nHL across all frequencies, and median air-bone gaps were 0 dB across all frequencies. There was no significant threshold difference between left and right ears and no significant relationship between thresholds and hearing loss risk factors, ethnicity, or gender. Older age was related to decreased latency for air conduction. Compared with previous studies, mean air conduction thresholds were found at slightly lower (better) levels, while bone conduction levels were better at 2000 Hz and higher at 500 Hz. Latency values were longer at 500 Hz than previous studies using other instrumentation. Sleep state did not affect air or bone conduction thresholds. This study demonstrated slightly better wave V thresholds for air conduction than previous infant studies. The differences found in the present study, while statistically significant, were within the test step size of 10 dB. This suggests that threshold responses obtained using the Kalman weighting software were within the range of other published studies using traditional signal averaging, given step-size limitations. Thresholds were not adversely affected by variable sleep states.
    Ear and Hearing 02/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000155
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to establish a statistical definition for stability in cochlear implant maps. Once defined, this study aimed to compare the duration taken to achieve a stable map in first and second implants in patients who underwent sequential bilateral cochlear implantation. This article also sought to evaluate a number of factors that potentially affect map stability. A retrospective cohort study of 33 patients with sensorineural hearing loss who received sequential bilateral cochlear implantation (Cochlear, Sydney, Australia), performed by the senior author. Psychophysical parameters of hearing threshold scores, comfort scores, and the dynamic range were measured for the apical, medial, and basal portions of the cochlear implant electrode at a range of intervals postimplantation. Stability was defined statistically as a less than 10% difference in threshold, comfort, and dynamic range scores over three consecutive mapping sessions. A senior cochlear implant audiologist, blinded to implant order and the statistical results, separately analyzed these psychophysical map parameters using current assessment methods. First and second implants were compared for duration to achieve stability, age, gender, the duration of deafness, etiology of deafness, time between the insertion of the first and second implant, and the presence or absence of preoperative hearing aids were evaluated and its relationship to stability. Statistical analysis included performing a two-tailed Student's t tests and least squares regression analysis, with a statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05. There was a significant positive correlation between the devised statistical definition and the current audiology methods for assessing stability, with a Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.36 and a least squares regression slope (b) of 0.41, df(58), 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.55 (p = 0.004). The average duration from device switch on to stability in the first implant was 87 days using current audiology methods and 81 days using the statistical definition, with no statistically significant difference between assessment methods (p = 0.2). The duration to achieve stability in the second implant was 51 days using current audiology methods and 60 days using the statistical method, and again no difference between the two assessment methods (p = 0.13). There was a significant reduction in the time to achieve stability in second implants for both audiology and statistical methods (p < 0.001 and p = 0.02, respectively). There was a difference in duration to achieve stability based on electrode array region, with basal portions taking longer to stabilize than apical in the first implant (p = 0.02) and both apical and medial segments in second implants (p = 0.004 and p = 0.01, respectively). No factors that were evaluated in this study, including gender, age, etiology of deafness, duration of deafness, time between implant insertion, and the preoperative hearing aid status, were correlated with stability duration in either stability assessment method. Our statistical definition can accurately predict cochlear implant map stability when compared with current audiology practices. Cochlear implants that are implanted second tend to stabilize sooner than the first, which has a significant impact on counseling before a second implant. No factors evaluated affected the duration required to achieve stability in this study.
    Ear and Hearing 02/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000154
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to assess the objective and subjective long-term binaural benefits of surgical correction in children with unilateral congenital aural atresia, using an open-set sentence test in noise and subjective questionnaires. A prospective study was performed between August 2010 and February 2013. This study included pediatric patients who had unilateral conductive hearing loss (normal bone conduction hearing) on the atretic side but normal air conduction hearing on the normal side and were scheduled to undergo a primary canaloplasty. Pure-tone audiometry, the hearing in noise test (HINT), and questionnaires (Sound-Spatial-Qualities of Hearing Scale; Glasgow Benefit Inventory [GBI]) were administered preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Among 34 consecutive patients who initially met enrollment criteria, 26 subjects (23 boys and 3 girls) aged 10 to 16 years (mean 12.3 years) completed this study. Canaloplasty and hearing restoration procedures were performed uneventfully in all patients. The mean air conduction thresholds were significantly improved from 63.9 to 35.0 dB (6 months) and 39.4 dB (12 months) after surgery (p < 0.001). In HINT, speech understanding in noise that was presented toward the newly opened atretic ear significantly improved at 1 year postoperatively (p = 0.014). In noise toward the normal ear, speech understanding significantly improved after surgery, from -0.1 dB preoperatively to -2.0 dB at 6 months (p = 0.002) and -1.8 dB at 12 months (p = 0.005) (p for quadratic trend = 0.036). The composite score improved from -2.6 dB preoperatively to -3.4 dB at 6 months and -3.6 dB at 12 months (p = 0.045; p for linear trend = 0.005). The Sound-Spatial-Qualities of Hearing Scale scores in all domains significantly improved 1 year after surgery (p < 0.034). The mean GBI scores in each domain ranged from 14.2 to 49.4. Total GBI score was correlated with better signal to noise ratio in noise toward the atretic ear as measured by HINT at postoperative 1 year (Spearman ρ = 0.482, p = 0.013). Teenaged patients with unilateral congenital aural atresia showed satisfactory hearing improvement after canaloplasty with hearing restoration surgery. In a serial long-term follow-up, speech understanding in noise measured by HINT improved over time. One year after surgery, teenaged children acquired binaural hearing (binaural squelch), as measured by the HINT with noise presented to the newly opened atretic ear. Subjective questionnaires also showed improvements in binaural hearing function and quality of life.
    Ear and Hearing 02/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000149
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether speech understanding in auditory brainstem implant (ABI) users who have a tumor pathology could be improved by the selection of a subset of electrodes that were appropriately pitch ranked and distinguishable. It was hypothesized that disordered pitch or spectral percepts and channel interactions may contribute significantly to the poor outcomes in most ABI users. A single-subject design was used with five participants. Pitch ranking information for all electrodes in the patients' clinic maps was obtained using a pitch ranking task and previous pitch ranking information from clinic sessions. A multidimensional scaling task was used to evaluate the stimulus space evoked by stimuli on the same set of electrodes. From this information, a subset of four to six electrodes was chosen and a new map was created, using just this subset, that the subjects took home for 1 month's experience. Closed-set consonant and vowel perception and sentences in quiet were tested at three sessions: with the clinic map before the test map was given, after 1 month with the test map, and after an additional 2 weeks with their clinic map. The results of the pitch ranking and multidimensional scaling procedures confirmed that the ABI users did not have a well-ordered set of percepts related to electrode position, thus supporting the proposal that difficulty in processing of spectral information may contribute to poor speech understanding. However, none of the subjects benefited from a map that reduced the stimulation electrode set to a smaller number of electrodes that were well ordered in place pitch. Although poor spectral processing may contribute to poor understanding in ABI users, it is not likely to be the sole contributor to poor outcomes.
    Ear and Hearing 02/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000146
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: This study measured the impact of auditory spectral resolution on listening effort. Systematic degradation in spectral resolution was hypothesized to elicit corresponding systematic increases in pupil dilation, consistent with the notion of pupil dilation as a marker of cognitive load. Design: Spectral resolution of sentences was varied with two different vocoders: (1) a noise-channel vocoder with a variable number of spectral channels; and (2) a vocoder designed to simulate front-end processing of a cochlear implant, including peak-picking channel selection with variable synthesis filter slopes to simulate spread of neural excitation. Pupil dilation was measured after subject-specific luminance adjustment and trial-specific baseline measures. Mixed-effects growth curve analysis was used to model pupillary responses over time. Results: For both types of vocoder, pupil dilation grew with each successive degradation in spectral resolution. Within each condition, pupillary responses were not related to intelligibility scores, and the effect of spectral resolution on pupil dilation persisted even when only analyzing trials in which responses were 100% correct. Conclusions: Intelligibility scores alone were not sufficient to quantify the effort required to understand speech with poor resolution. Degraded spectral resolution results in increased effort required to understand speech, even when intelligibility is at 100%. Pupillary responses were a sensitive and highly granular measurement to reveal changes in listening effort. Pupillary responses might potentially reveal the benefits of aural prostheses that are not captured by speech intelligibility performance alone as well as the disadvantages that are overcome by increased listening effort.
    Ear and Hearing 02/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000145
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ability to perceive speech is related to the listener's ability to differentiate among frequencies (i.e., spectral resolution). Cochlear implant (CI) users exhibit variable speech-perception and spectral-resolution abilities, which can be attributed in part to the extent of electrode interactions at the periphery (i.e., spatial selectivity). However, electrophysiological measures of peripheral spatial selectivity have not been found to correlate with speech perception. The purpose of this study was to evaluate auditory processing at the periphery and cortex using both simple and spectrally complex stimuli to better understand the stages of neural processing underlying speech perception. The hypotheses were that (1) by more completely characterizing peripheral excitation patterns than in previous studies, significant correlations with measures of spectral selectivity and speech perception would be observed, (2) adding information about processing at a level central to the auditory nerve would account for additional variability in speech perception, and (3) responses elicited with spectrally complex stimuli would be more strongly correlated with speech perception than responses elicited with spectrally simple stimuli. Eleven adult CI users participated. Three experimental processor programs (MAPs) were created to vary the likelihood of electrode interactions within each participant. For each MAP, a subset of 7 of 22 intracochlear electrodes was activated: adjacent (MAP 1), every other (MAP 2), or every third (MAP 3). Peripheral spatial selectivity was assessed using the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) to obtain channel-interaction functions for all activated electrodes (13 functions total). Central processing was assessed by eliciting the auditory change complex with both spatial (electrode pairs) and spectral (rippled noise) stimulus changes. Speech-perception measures included vowel discrimination and the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise test. Spatial and spectral selectivity and speech perception were expected to be poorest with MAP 1 (closest electrode spacing) and best with MAP 3 (widest electrode spacing). Relationships among the electrophysiological and speech-perception measures were evaluated using mixed-model and simple linear regression analyses. All electrophysiological measures were significantly correlated with each other and with speech scores for the mixed-model analysis, which takes into account multiple measures per person (i.e., experimental MAPs). The ECAP measures were the best predictor. In the simple linear regression analysis on MAP 3 data, only the cortical measures were significantly correlated with speech scores; spectral auditory change complex amplitude was the strongest predictor. The results suggest that both peripheral and central electrophysiological measures of spatial and spectral selectivity provide valuable information about speech perception. Clinically, it is often desirable to optimize performance for individual CI users. These results suggest that ECAP measures may be most useful for within-subject applications when multiple measures are performed to make decisions about processor options. They also suggest that if the goal is to compare performance across individuals based on a single measure, then processing central to the auditory nerve (specifically, cortical measures of discriminability) should be considered.
    Ear and Hearing 02/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000144
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The primary goal of this study was to describe relationships between peripheral and central electrophysiologic measures of auditory processing within individual cochlear implant (CI) users. The distinctiveness of neural excitation patterns resulting from the stimulation of different electrodes, referred to as 'spatial selectivity,' was evaluated. The hypothesis was that if central representations of spatial interactions differed across participants semi-independently of peripheral input, then the within-subject relationships between peripheral and central electrophysiologic measures of spatial selectivity would reflect those differences. Cross-subject differences attributable to processing central to the auditory nerve may help explain why peripheral electrophysiologic measures of spatial selectivity have not been found to correlate with speech perception. Eleven adults participated in this and a companion study. All were peri- or post-lingually deafened with more than 1 year of CI experience. Peripheral spatial selectivity was evaluated at 13 cochlear locations using 13 electrodes as probes to elicit electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs). Masker electrodes were varied across the array for each probe electrode to derive channel-interaction functions. The same 13 electrodes were used to evaluate spatial selectivity represented at a cortical level. Electrode pairs were stimulated sequentially to elicit the auditory change complex (ACC), an obligatory cortical potential suggestive of discrimination. For each participant, the relationship between ECAP channel-interaction functions (quantified as channel-separation indices) and ACC N1-P2 amplitudes was modeled using the saturating exponential function y=a*(1-e^(-bx)) . Both a and b coefficients were varied using a least-squares approach to optimize the fits. Electrophysiologic measures of spatial selectivity assessed at peripheral (ECAP) and central (ACC) levels varied across participants. The results indicate that differences in ACC amplitudes observed across participants for the same stimulus conditions were not solely the result of differences in peripheral excitation patterns. This finding supports the view that processing at multiple points along the auditory neural pathway from the periphery to the cortex may vary across individuals with different etiologies and auditory experiences. The distinctiveness of neural excitation resulting from electrical stimulation varies across CI recipients, and this variability was observed in both peripheral and cortical electrophysiologic measures. The ACC amplitude differences observed across participants were partially independent from differences in peripheral neural spatial selectivity. These findings are clinically relevant because they imply that there may be limits (1) to the predictive ability of peripheral measures and (2) in the extent to which improving the selectivity of electrical stimulation via programming options (e.g., current focusing/steering) will result in more specific central neural excitation patterns or will improve speech perception.
    Ear and Hearing 02/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000143
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The year 2015 ushers in several new changes for our journal. First, and most apparent, is the new online-only formatting for Ear and Hearing. Beginning with the January/February 2015 issue, Ear and Hearing is only available in print to members of the American Auditory Society who pay an additional fee (see www.auditorysoc.org for complete information). The online-only format allows us to make articles available to our readers more quickly and with enhancements such as color figures without charge to authors and immediate access to supplemental digital content. We think our readers will agree that this decision is not only environmentally sound but also fiscally responsible. Without the burden of postage and print, we can more effectively control costs while continuing to provide rapid access to the most important research.
    Ear and Hearing 01/2015; 36(2). DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000151
  • Ear and Hearing 01/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000141
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In many countries including the United Kingdom, hearing aids are a first line of audiologic intervention for many people with tinnitus and aidable hearing loss. Nevertheless, there is a lack of high quality evidence to support that they are of benefit for tinnitus, and wide variability in their use in clinical practice especially for people with mild hearing loss. The aim of this study was to identify a consensus among a sample of UK clinicians on the criteria for hearing aid candidature and clinical practice in fitting hearing aids specifically for mild hearing loss with and without tinnitus. This will allow professionals to establish clinical benchmarks and to gauge their practice with that used elsewhere. The Delphi technique, a systematic methodology that seeks consensus amongst experts through consultation using a series of iterative questionnaires, was used. A three-round Delphi survey explored clinical consensus among a panel of 29 UK hearing professionals. The authors measured panel agreement on 115 statements covering: (i) general factors affecting the decision to fit hearing aids, (ii) protocol-driven factors affecting the decision to fit hearing aids, (iii) general practice, and (iv) clinical observations. Consensus was defined as a priori ≥70% agreement across the panel. Consensus was reached for 58 of the 115 statements. The broad areas of consensus were around factors important to consider when fitting hearing aids; hearing aid technology/features offered; and important clinical assessment to verify hearing aid fit (agreement of 70% or more). For patients with mild hearing loss, the greatest priority was given by clinicians to patient-centered criteria for fitting hearing aids: hearing difficulties, motivation to wear hearing aids, and impact of hearing loss on quality of life (chosen as top five by at least 64% of panelists). Objective measures were given a lower priority: degree of hearing loss and shape of the audiogram (chosen as top five by less than half of panelists). Areas where consensus was not reached were related to the use of questionnaires to predict and verify hearing aid benefit for both hearing and tinnitus; audiometric criteria for fitting hearing aids; and safety of using loud sounds when verifying hearing aid fitting when the patient has tinnitus (agreement of <70%). The authors identified practices that are considered important when recommending or fitting hearing aid for a patient with tinnitus. More importantly perhaps, they identified practical issues where there are divided opinions. Their findings inform the design of clinical trials and open up debate on the potential impact of practice differences on patient outcomes.
    Ear and Hearing 01/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000140
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine whether the time course for the buildup of auditory stream segregation differs between younger and older adults. Word recognition thresholds were determined for the first and last keywords in semantically anomalous but syntactically correct sentences (e.g., "A rose could paint a fish") when the target sentences were masked by speech-spectrum noise, 3-band vocoded speech, 16-band vocoded speech, intact and colocated speech, and intact and spatially separated speech. A significant reduction in thresholds from the first to the last keyword was interpreted as indicating that stream segregation improved with time. The buildup of stream segregation is slowed for both age groups when the masker is intact, colocated speech. Older adults are more disadvantaged; for them, stream segregation is also slowed even when a speech masker is spatially separated, conveys little meaning (3-band vocoding), and vocal fine structure cues are impoverished but envelope cues remain available (16-band vocoding).
    Ear and Hearing 01/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000139