Journal of Otolaryngology-ENT Research Effectiveness of Frequency-Lowering Hearing Aids and Electric Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant for Treating People with a Severe-To-Profound High- Frequency Hearing Loss Submit Manuscript | http://medcraveonline.com Abbreviations: APHAB: Abbreviated Profile Of Hearing Aid Benefit; CHU: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire; CIRRIS: Centre For Interdisciplinary Research In Rehabilitation And Social Integration; CIUSSS: Centre Intégré Universitaire De Santé Et De Services Sociaux; CMR: Centre Montérégien De Réadaptation; CNC: Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant; CRIR: Centre De Recherche Interdisciplinaire En Réadaptation Du Montréal Métropolitain; DSL: Desired Sensation Level; EAS: Electric Acoustic Stimulation; FL: Frequency-Lowering; FRQ-S: Fonds De Recherche Du Québec- Santé; GHABP: Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile; HA: Hearing Aid; HFHL: High-Frequency Hearing Loss; HINT: Hearing In Noise Test; IRD: Institut Raymond-Dewar; LFT: Linear Frequency Transposition; NFC: Non-Linear Frequency Compression; SNR: Signal-To-Noise Ratio; TAM: Test Audiologique Multimédia; TEN: Threshold-Equalizing-Noise Introduction Frequency-lowering (FL) techniques have been developed and tested on people with a high-frequency hearing loss (HFHL) for many years. The objective being pursued with the use of this technology is to improve access to high-frequency sounds for hearing aid (HA) wearers. Actually, conventional HAs are known Volume 6 Issue 3 - 2017 1 Department of Rehabilitation, Laval University, Canada 2 Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration (CIRRIS) 3 Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux (CIUSSS) de la Capitale-Nationale, Canada *Corresponding author: Mathieu Hotton, Department of Rehabilitation, Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation and Social Integration, 525 Wilfrid-Hamel Blvd, room J-30.24, Québec City, Québec, G1M 2S8, Canada, Tel: +1 (418) 529-9141 ext. 6704; Email: Received: December 30, 2016 | Published: March 17, 2017 Research Article J Otolaryngol ENT Res 2017, 6(3): 00162 Abstract Objectives: The objective of this research project was to compare the effectiveness of frequency-transposition, frequency-compression hearing aids and the electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) cochlear implant to improve speech recognition in participants with a sensorineural severe-to-profound high-frequency hearing loss (HFHL). Design: Ten adults with a severe-to-profound HFHL were recruited. They were all tested with frequency-compression and frequency-transposition hearing aids following an ABAC single-subject design; four-week baselines were completed with their own hearing aids, followed by eight-week trials with each device. One participant also received an EAS implant after hearing aid trials. Follow-up time ranged from 16 to 32 weeks. Speech recognition was measured each week using sentence and monosyllable lists, in quiet and in noise. The subjective benefit with each technology was assessed with standardized questionnaires. Complementary data about the EAS implant effectiveness were also extracted from our database of EAS users. Results: Frequency-lowering (FL) hearing aids improved speech recognition in five participants when compared to conventional hearing aids. Others experienced either no gain or some degradation in speech recognition when using a FL algorithm. Most participants reported better speech perception in everyday listening situations with FL hearing aids. Still, the participant who received an EAS implant obtained a greater improvement in speech recognition and reported a better benefit with this technology. Data collected from our database of EAS patients validated that the EAS participant was representative of our EAS users’ population. Conclusion: The EAS implant appears as the first indication for treating people with a severe-to-profound HFHL; it is also the costliest and most invasive alternative. Thus, and considering the significant benefit some participants obtained with FL hearing aids, trials using these technologies should be considered on an individual basis prior to implantation. Keywords: Hearing aids; Frequency Lowering; Cochlear implants; Electric Acoustic Stimulation; Speech Recognition; Subjective Benefit; High-Frequency Hearing Loss; Adults; recognition measures; NFC or LFT