Gelfand S A, Silman S
Ear Hear. 1982 Jan-Feb;3(1):24-9. doi: 10.1097/00003446-198201000-00005.
Responses to a hearing aid usage questionnaire were received from 128 patients with high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss fitted monaurally with contralateral routing of signals (CROS) or ipsilateral routing of signals (IROS) hearing aids. Functional benefits were demonstrated by wearing the instruments 8 to 9 hr/day, use of the aids about 60% of the time in communicative situations, subjective benefit judgements of 5 to 9 on a 10-point scale, improved subjective sound localization, and improved clarity of speech with the hearing aids. Although CROS and IROS fittings could not be separated on the basis of these factors, considerably more complaints were reported by the CROS wearers, and many of these related to auditory factors. Both CROS and IROS fittings appear to be effective approaches to the patient with high-frequency hearing loss. However in light of the fewer complaints by the IROS group, and the fact that a large proportion of the CROS complaints related to the amplified signal, IROS appears to be the preferable of the two. The exception involves cases requiring high gain so that CROS might be employed to reduce acoustic feedback.
我们收到了128例高频感音神经性听力损失患者的助听器使用问卷回复，这些患者单侧佩戴对侧信号通路（CROS）或同侧信号通路（IROS）助听器。通过每天佩戴仪器8至9小时、在交流情境中约60%的时间使用助听器、在10分制量表上主观受益评分为5至9分、主观声音定位改善以及使用助听器后语音清晰度提高，证明了其功能益处。尽管基于这些因素无法区分CROS和IROS装置，但CROS佩戴者报告的抱怨要多得多，其中许多与听觉因素有关。CROS和IROS装置似乎都是治疗高频听力损失患者的有效方法。然而，鉴于IROS组的抱怨较少，以及CROS的大部分抱怨与放大信号有关，IROS似乎是两者中更可取的。例外情况涉及需要高增益的病例，因此可能采用CROS来减少声反馈。
