Digital in-the-Ear Hearing Aids are Susceptible to Bystander Electromagnetic Interference from 2.5G Mobile Telephones -
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12970/2308-7978.2013.01.01.9Keywords:
Mobile phones, hearing aids, interference, speech perception.Abstract
Aim: To quantify the bystander effect of advanced second generation mobile telephones (2.5G) on the speech perception of in-the-ear (ITE) digital hearing aid users. Materials/Methods: Prospective study conducted at a tertiary referral centre (ENT Department) and a hearing aid-fitting laboratory. Thirty four adults with SNHL were included, and tested with a functioning 2.5G mobile telephone at almost physical contact with their ear. The cut-off inclusion criterion regarding the baseline aided word recognition score was 75%. Results: The ITE group comprised 23 males and 11 females. The mean age was 65 years (age range 24 – 84), and the mean hearing loss in the aided ear 48.73dB. The mean baseline aided word recognition score of the examined ear was 96.94%, and declined to 95.65% following the activation of the mobile phone. The difference was statistically significant (p< 0.05). Conclusion: There is statistically significant difference in the speech perception of ITE hearing aid users after the activation of a 2.5G mobile phone at close contact, due to the bystander electromagnetic interference. Although, the clinical importance and the ensuing social impact of the observed decline in speech perception appear minimal, it seems reasonable for designing efforts to focus on establishing better hearing immunity for ITE hearing aids.References
[1] Vlastarakos PV, Nikolopoulos TP, Tavoulari E, Papacharalambous G, Tzagaroulakis A, Dazert S. Sensory Cell Regeneration and Stem Cells: What We Have Already Achieved in the Management of Deafness. Otol Neurotol 2008; 29(6): 758-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e31817fdfad
[2] Vlastarakos PV, Nikolopoulos TP, Tavoulari E, Kiprouli C, Ferekidis E. Novel approaches to the therapy of sensorineural hearing loss. Auditory genetics and necessary factors for stem cell transplantation. Med Sci Monit 2008; 14(8): RA114-125.
[3] Gatehouse S. Electronic aids to hearing. Br Med Bull 2002; 63: 147-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bmb/63.1.147
[4] Kricos P, Holmes A, Doyle D. Efficacy of a communication training program for hearing impaired elderly adults. J Acad Rehab Audiol 1992; 25: 69-80.
[5] Kricos PB, Holmes A. Efficacy of audiologic rehabilitation for older adults. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7(4): 219-29.
[6] Chisolm TH, Johnson CE, Danhauer JL, Portz LJ, Abrams HB, Lesner S, et al. A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force On the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in Adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18(2): 151-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.2.7
[7] No authors listed. Research News. United Way Newsletter: Hearing Impairment. Canada, Sept 2006.
[8] Noble W, Gatehouse S. Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2006; 45(3): 172-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020500376933
[9] Gybels G. Requirements for deaf and hard of hearing people on mobile networks. Available via the electronic link: www. etsi.org/cce/proceedings/session 4: Accessibility on the Move, 2003 (accessed 30 Apr 2007).
[10] No authors listed. FCC: Cell phones must work with hearing aids. Consumer Reports 2003; 68(10): 7.
[11] Ross M. Wireless telephones and hearing aids: an overview. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12(6): 286-9.
[12] Sorri M, Piiparinen P, Huttunen K, Haho M, Tobey E, Thibodeau L, et al. Hearing aid users benefit from induction loop when using digital cellular phones. Ear Hear 2003; 24(2): 119-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AUD.0000058111.61435.53
[13] Skopec M. Hearing aid electromagnetic interference from digital wireless telephones. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 1998; 6(2): 235-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/86.681190
[14] Hansen MO, Poulsen T. Evaluation of noise in hearing instruments caused by GSM and DECT mobile telephones. Scand Audiol 1996; 25(4): 227-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01050399609074959
[15] Le Strange JR, Byrne D, Joyner KH, Symons GL. Interference to hearing aids by the digital mobile Telefone system, global system for mobile communications (GSM). NAL Rep. 131, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia, 1995.
[16] No authors listed. Hearing aids and GSM mobile telephones: Interference problems, methods of measurement and levels of immunity. EHIMA GSM Project Final Report, Odense (Denmark): Delta Acoustics and Vibration and Telecom Denmark, 1995.
[17] Ravidran AR, Schlegel RE, Grant H, Mathews P, Scates P. Study measures interference to hearing aids from digital phones. Hearing J 1997; 50: 32-4.
[18] Hearing Concern. Radiofrequency Hearing Impaired Committee. www.rfhic.org.uk/pubdocs/tag pg4.html. (accessed 23 Feb 2005).
[19] AAO-ACO (American Academy of Otolaryngology and American Council of Otolaryngology). Guide for evaluation of hearing handicap. JAMA 1979; 241.
[20] Olsen WO. Average speech levels and spectra in various speaking/listening conditions: A summary of the Pearson, Bennett, & Fidell (1977) report. Am J Audiol 1998; 7(2): 21- 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(1998/012)
[21] No authors listed. Interference with hearing aids caused by GSM digital cellular telephones and DECT digital cordless telephones. Conclusive Report by the Working Group on GSM and DECT telephones and hearing aids, Denmark, 1994.
[22] Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J. The BKB (Bamford-KowalBench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol 1979; 13(3): 108-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/03005367909078884
[23] Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VII: Obstacles to adult non-user adoption of hearing aids. Hearing J 2007; 60(4): 24-51.
[24] Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray GA. Who wants a hearing aid? Personality profiles of hearing aid seekers. Ear Hear 2005; 26(1): 12-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200502000-00002
[25] Cienkowski KM, Pimentel V. The hearing aid 'effect' revisited in young adults. Br J Audiol 2001; 35(5): 289-95.
[26] Stephens D, Lewis P, Davis A, Gianopoulos I, Vetter N. Hearing aid possession in the population: lessons from a small country. Audiology 2001; 40(2): 104-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00206090109073105
[27] Kochkin S. MarkeTrak V: Consumer satisfaction revisited. Hearing J 2000; 53(1): 38-55.
[28] Castro A, Lassaletta L, Bastarrica M, Prim MP, De Sarria MJ, Gavilan J. Comparison of different mobile telephones in Combi40+ users. Acta Otolaryngol 2006; 126(7): 714-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016480500469552
[29] Sorri MJ, Piiparinen PJ, Huttunen KH, Haho MJ. Solutions to electromagnetic interference problems between cochlear implants and GSM phones. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2006; 14(1): 101-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2006.870497
[30] Kompis M, Hausler R. Electromagnetic interference of boneanchored hearing aids by cellular phones revisited. Acta Otolaryngol 2002; 122(5): 510-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016480260092318
[31] Sorri MJ, Huttunen KH, Valimaa TT, Karinen PJ, Lopponen HJ. Cochllear implants and GSM phone. Scand Audiol Suppl 2001; (52): 54-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/010503901300007065
[32] van Lieshout EJ, van der Veer SN, Hensbroek R, Korevaar JC, Vroom MB, Schultz MJ. Interference by new-generation mobile phones on critical care medical equipment. Crit Care 2007; 11(5): R98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc6115
[33] Irnich W, Batz L, Muller R, Tobisch R. Electromagnetic interference of pacemakers by mobile phones. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1996; 19(10): 1431-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1996.tb03155.x
[34] Fry TL, Schlegel RE, Grant H. Impact of CDMA wireless phone power output and puncture rate on hearing aid interference levels. Biomed Instrum Technol 2000; 34(1): 29- 38.
[35] Schlegel RE, Ravindran A, Raman S, Grant H. Wireless telephone-hearing aid electromagnetic compatibility research at the University of Oklahoma. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12(6): 301-8.
[36] Levitt H, Harkins J, Singer B, Yeung E. Field measurements of electromagnetic interference in hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12(6): 275-80.
[37] Vlastarakos PV, Nikolopoulos TP, Manolopoulos L, Stamou A, Halkiotis K, Ferekidis E, et al. Quantifying the bystandereffect of 2.5G mobile telephones on the speech perception of digital hearing aid users. B-ENT 2012; 8(2): 95-101.
[38] Saunders GH, Cienkowski KM. A test to measure subjective and objective speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13(1): 38-49.
[39] Berger SH. ANSI C63.19 - Hearing Aid / Cellular Telephone Compatibility. IEEE EMC Society Newsletter, 2001, Issue 189.
[40] Palmer CV. Deprivation and acclimatization in the human auditory system: Do they happen? Do they matter? Hearing J 1999; 52(11): 23-4.
[41] Silverman CA, Silman S, Emmer MB, Schoepflin JR, Lutolf JJ. Auditory deprivation in adults with asymmetric, sensorineural hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17(10): 747-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.17.10.6
[42] Gelfand SA. Long-term recovery and no recovery from the auditory deprivation effect with binaural amplification: six cases. J Am Acad Audiol 1995; 6(2): 141-9.
[43] Silman S, Silverman CA, Emmer MB, Gelfand SA. Adultonset auditory deprivation. J Am Acad Audiol 1992; 3(6): 390-6.
[44] Silverman CA, Silman S. Apparent auditory deprivation from monaural amplification and recovery with binaural amplification: two case studies. J Am Acad Audiol 1990; 1(4): 175-80.
[45] Gelfand SA, Silman S, Ross L. Long-term effects of monaural, binaural and no amplification in subjects with bilateral hearing loss. Scand Audiol 1987; 16(4): 201-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01050398709074941
[46] Silman S, Gelfand SA, Silverman CA. Late-onset auditory deprivation: effects of monaural versus binaural hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76(5): 1357-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.391451
