Short-Term and Long-Term Hearing Aid Benefit and User Satisfaction: A Comparison between Two Fitting Protocols

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (06) ◽  
pp. 482-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu-Feng Shi ◽  
Karen A. Doherty ◽  
Tammy M. Kordas ◽  
Joseph T. Pellegrino
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Daily Life ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Currently published hearing aid fitting protocols recommend speech-in-noise testing and loudness measures, but it remains unclear how these measures affect hearing aid benefit and user satisfaction. This study compared two protocols in their effects on benefit and satisfaction. Protocol A included an electroacoustic analysis, real-ear measures, and hearing aid adjustments based on users' comments. Protocol B included all of Protocol A and a speech-in-noise test, loudness discomfort levels, and aided loudness. Thirty-two participants completed the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) at 45 days and three months post–initial fitting. Fewer hearing aid adjustments were made to the hearing aids for participants fitted with Protocol B than participants fitted with Protocol A, but final gains were similar for both groups. Although similar APHAB scores were obtained for both protocols, SADL scores decreased between 45 days and three months for Protocol A. Los protocoles de amplificación de auxiliares auditivo actualmente publicados recomiendan pruebas de lenguaje en ruido y mediciones de apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad (sonoridad), pero no está claro cómo estas mediciones afectan el beneficio de un auxiliar auditivo y la satisfacción del usuario. El estudio comparó dos protocolos en cuanto a sus efectos sobre beneficio y satisfacción. El Protocolo A incluyó un análisis electroacústico, mediciones de oído real y ajuste en el auxiliar auditivo basados en los comentarios del usuario. El Protocolo B incluyó todas las pruebas del Protocolo A, además de una prueba de audición en ruido, de niveles de molestia en la apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad y de sonoridad amplificada. Treinta y dos participantes completaron el Perfil Abreviado de Beneficio del Auxiliar Auditivo (APHAB) y la prueba de Satisfacción con la Amplificación en la Vida Diaria (SADL) a los 45 días y a los tres meses de la adaptación inicial. Tuvieron que hacerse menos ajustes en el audífono en los auxiliares auditivos de participantes adaptados con el Protocolo B, que en los participantes adaptados con el Protocolo A, pero las ganancias finales fueron similares en ambos grupos. Aunque se obtuvieron puntajes APHAB similares en ambos protocolos, los puntajes SADL disminuyeron entre los 45 días y los tres meses para el Protocolo A.

Comparing the Effect of Different Hearing Aid Fitting Methods in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jantien L. Vroegop ◽  
J. Gertjan Dingemanse ◽  
Marc P. van der Schroeff ◽  
André Goedegebure
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Localization Test ◽  
Fitting Procedures ◽  
Auditory Performance ◽  
Contralateral Ear ◽  
Noise Test

PurposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the effect of 3 hearing aid fitting procedures on provided gain of the hearing aid in bimodal cochlear implant users and their effect on bimodal benefit.MethodThis prospective study measured hearing aid gain and auditory performance in a cross-over design in which 3 hearing aid fitting methods were compared. Hearing aid fitting methods differed in initial gain prescription rule (NAL-NL2 and Audiogram+) and loudness balancing method (broadband vs. narrowband loudness balancing). Auditory functioning was evaluated by a speech-in-quiet test, a speech-in-noise test, and a sound localization test. Fourteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal cochlear implant users participated in the study.ResultsNo differences in provided gain and in bimodal performance were found for the different hearing aid fittings. For all hearing aid fittings, a bimodal benefit was found for speech in noise and sound localization.ConclusionOur results confirm that cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the contralateral ear substantially benefit from bimodal stimulation. However, on average, no differences were found between different types of fitting methods, varying in prescription rule and loudness balancing method.

scholarly journals A Study on the Korean Conversation Speech Level and Spectrum in Sound-Treated Environment

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Kwon Han ◽  
Kyoungwon Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Conversational Speech ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Importance Function ◽  
Speech Spectrum ◽  
Males And Females ◽  
Korean Type

Purpose: Several studies have reported the differences between Korean and other countries’ speech in long-term average speech spectrum (LTASS) and band importance function. Authors tried to identify the conversational speech level, the resulting spectrum, and the LTASS for Korean. The purpose of this study was to support the production of a Korean-type hearing aid fitting formula to effectively improve the sound quality of hearing aids and the communication abilities with hearing aids, and to standardize the sound stimuli required to measure the performance of hearing aids. Methods: A total of 73 participants with normal hearing and with no specific voice and language deficits was voluntarily recruited from capital, Gyeongsang and Jeolla areas. The conversational speech level was measured by vocalizing ‘soft,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘raised,’ and ‘loud’ at a distance of 1.0 m from the speaker. And LTASS was measured by vocalizing it at a distance of 0.2 m from the speaker. Results: There was a difference in the mean of males and females in the conversation level, but no significant regional differences were shown. The conversational speech level corresponding to 30th, 65th, and 99th percentiles was 59.67, 64.74, and 79.07 dB sound pressure level, respectively. And the speech spectrum of 30th, 65th, and 99th percentile and LTASS showed in different forms from the international speech test signal. Conclusion: The results of this study should help to calculate the Korean type hearing aid fitting formula and should be used as the basic data to determine the characteristics of the sound stimuli when measuring the performance of the hearing aid.

Systematic Evaluation of Self-Reported Hearing Ability in Six Dimensions Before and After a Hearing Aid Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (11) ◽  
pp. 4150-4164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inge de Ronde-Brons ◽  
Wim Soede ◽  
Wouter Dreschler
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Sum Score ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Fitting In ◽  
Structured Approach

Purpose The aim of the study was to evaluate the application of a modified version of the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disabilities and Handicap to inventory self-reported hearing difficulties pre and post hearing aid fitting in 6 dimensions: detection, speech in silence, speech in noise, localization, discrimination, and noise tolerance. Method Questionnaires pre and post hearing aid fitting were collected during regular practice of hearing aid provision. Data of 740 subjects are presented; 337 already used hearing aids, and 403 were new users. Results Group-averaged scores improved due to hearing aid fitting for all 6 dimensions. Based on a criterion previously defined for the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disabilities and Handicap questionnaire, 66% of subjects had a significant individual improvement in sum score. Experienced users showed lower improvement in scores, whereas their aided prescores were, on average, not better than the (unaided) score of 1st users. Conclusions The questionnaire can be applied as a structured approach to inventory hearing problems in 6 dimensions prior to hearing aid fitting and to systematically evaluate the effects of hearing aid fitting after a trial period. The data presented here can serve as normative data for comparison of individual subjects in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Assessment of Objective Audiometry to Predict Subjective Satisfaction in Patients With Hearing Aids

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-147
Author(s):  
Min Young Kwak ◽  
Woo Ri Choi ◽  
Jun Woo Park ◽  
Eun Jeong Hwang ◽  
Yeo Ra Ha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Significant Group ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Objective Audiometry ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Objectives. To investigate the correlation of objective audiometry with user satisfaction as measured with the questionnaire scores.Methods. Twenty patients with hearing loss, who agreed to wear a hearing aid and were referred for hearing aid fitting, were included in this prospective clinical study. All patients used the in-the-canal type of Wide7 hearing aid provided by BSL Co., Ltd. We performed the Korean version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (K-HHIE) and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (K-IOI-HA) before and 1, 3, and 6 months after wearing the hearing aid. We also performed pure tone audiometry (PTA), speech audiometry (SA), functional gain (FG), hearing in noise test (HINT), and central auditory processing disorder tests, such as frequency pattern test (CA-f), duration pattern test (CA-d), and dichotic test (CA-Di). Patients were divided into two groups (group A-HHIE, improved; group B-HHIE, same or worse) by comparing the score of K-HHIE before and 6 months after wearing the hearing aid. In the 6-month K-IOI-HA questionnaire, 21 points were considered as the average score. Based on this, we further divided patients into two groups (group A-IOI, >21 points; group B-IOI, ≤21 points).Results. Group A-HHIE included six patients and group B-HHIE included 14 patients. In PTA, SA, HINT, CA-d, and CA-Di, group A-HHIE showed higher improvements than group B-HHIE, which were not statistically significant. Group A-IOI included 12 patients and group B-IOI included eight patients. No statistically significant difference was noted in the improvement of audiometric results over a period of 6 months after wearing the hearing aid between groups A-IOI and B-IOI.Conclusion. There were no significant and consistent audiometric results to reflect patient’s satisfaction with the hearing aid. Therefore, when analyzing the hearing aid-fitting outcome, both the objective audiometric tests and subjective questionnaire should be performed together for validating hearing aid performance.

scholarly journals Psychometric Comparison of the Hearing in Noise Test and the American English Matrix Test

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (04) ◽  
pp. 315-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jumana Harianawala ◽  
Jason Galster ◽  
Benjamin Hornsby
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
American English ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Corpus ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Intensity Functions

AbstractThe hearing in noise test (HINT) is the most popular adaptive test used to evaluate speech in noise performance, especially in context of hearing aid features. However, the number of conditions that can be tested on the HINT is limited by a small speech corpus. The American English Matrix test (AEMT) is a new alternative adaptive speech in noise test with a larger speech corpus. The study examined the relationships between the performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT.To examine whether there was a difference in performance of hearing aid wearers on the HINT and the AEMT. A secondary purpose, given the AEMT’s steep performance-intensity function, was to determine whether the AEMT is more sensitive to changes in speech recognition resulting from directional (DIR) microphone processing in hearing aids.A repeated measures design was used in this study. Multiple measurements were made on each subject. Each measurement involved a different experimental condition.Ten adults with hearing loss participated in this study.All participants completed the AEMT and HINT, using adaptive and fixed test formats while wearing hearing aids. Speech recognition was assessed in two hearing aid microphone settings—omnidirectional and fixed DIR. All testing was conducted via sound field presentation. Performance on HINT and AEMT were systematically compared across all test conditions using a linear model with repeated measures.The results of this study revealed that adult hearing aid users perform differently on the HINT and AEMT, with adaptive AEMT testing yielding significantly better (more negative) thresholds than the HINT. Slopes of performance intensity functions obtained by testing at multiple fixed signal-to-noise ratios, revealed a somewhat steeper slope for the HINT compared with the AEMT. Despite this steeper slope, the benefit provided by DIR microphones was not significantly different between the two speech tests.The observation of similar DIR benefits of the HINT and AEMT suggests that the HINT and AEMT are equally sensitive to changes in speech recognition thresholds following intervention. Therefore, the decision to use the AEMT or the HINT will depend on the purpose of the study and/or the technology being investigated. Other test related factors such as available sentence corpus, learning effects and test time will also influence test selection.

Initial-Fit Approach Versus Verified Prescription: Comparing Self-Perceived Hearing Aid Benefit

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 768-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey B. Abrams ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm ◽  
Megan McManus ◽  
Rachel McArdle
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Fitting Method ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Perceived Benefit ◽  
Eta Squared ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Background: Despite evidence suggesting inaccuracy in the default fittings provided by hearing aid manufacturers, the use of probe-microphone measures for the verification of fitting accuracy is routinely used by fewer than half of practicing audiologists. Purpose: The present study examined whether self-perception of hearing aid benefit, as measured through the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; Cox and Alexander, 1995), differed as a function of hearing aid fitting method, specifically, manufacturer's initial-fit approach versus a verified prescription. The prescriptive fit began at NAL-NL1 targets, with adjustments based on participant request. Each of the two fittings included probe-microphone measurement. Research Design: A counterbalanced, cross-over, repeated-measures, single-blinded design was utilized to address the research objectives. Study Sample: Twenty-two experienced hearing aid users from the general Bay Pines VA Healthcare System audiology clinic population were randomized into one of two intervention groups. Intervention: At the first visit, half of the participants were fit with new hearing aids via the manufacturer's initial fit while the second half were fit to a verified prescription using probe-microphone measurement. After a wear period of 4–6 wk, the participants' hearing aids were refit via the alternate method and worn for an additional 4–6 wk. Participants were blinded to the method of fitting by utilizing probe-microphone measures with both approaches. Data Collection and Analysis: The APHAB was administered at baseline and at the end of each intervention trial. At the end of the second trial period, the participants were asked to identify which hearing aid fitting was “preferred.” The APHAB data were subjected to a general linear model repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: For the three APHAB communication subscales (i.e., Ease of Communication, Reverberation, and Background Noise) mean scores obtained with the verified prescription were higher than those obtained with the initial-fit approach, indicating greater benefit with the former. The main effect of hearing aid fitting method was statistically significant [F (1, 21) = 4.69, p = 0.042] and accounted for 18% of the variance in the data (partial eta squared = 0.183). Although the mean benefit score for the APHAB Aversiveness subscale was also better (i.e., lower) for the verified prescription than the initial-fit approach, the difference was not statistically significant. Of the 22 participants, 7 preferred their hearing aids programmed to initial-fit settings and 15 preferred their hearing aids programmed to the verified prescription. Conclusions: The data support the conclusion that hearing aids fit to experienced hearing aid wearers using a verified prescription are more likely to yield better self-perceived benefit as measured by the APHAB than if fit using the manufacturer's initial-fit approach.

scholarly journals Analysis of the results of hearing aids fitting using the questionnaire «Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile»

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
L. E. Golooanooa ◽  
E. V. Zhiunskaya ◽  
M. . Yu
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

164 patients with moderate to severe ehronie bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were asked to fill in the Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile. Its usefulness was showed in eases of diffieult hearing aid fitting.

scholarly journals Effects of Wireless Remote Microphone on Speech Recognition in Noise for Hearing Aid Users in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Chen ◽  
Zhe Wang ◽  
Ruijuan Dong ◽  
Xinxing Fu ◽  
Yuan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Recognition Ability ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Test Distance

Objective: This study was aimed at evaluating improvements in speech-in-noise recognition ability as measured by signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) with the use of wireless remote microphone technology. These microphones transmit digital signals via radio frequency directly to hearing aids and may be a valuable assistive listening device for the hearing-impaired population of Mandarin speakers in China.Methods: Twenty-three adults (aged 19–80 years old) and fourteen children (aged 8–17 years old) with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were recruited. The Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test was used to test speech recognition ability in adult subjects, and the Mandarin Hearing in Noise Test for Children was used for children. The subjects’ perceived SNR was measured using sentence recognition ability at three different listening distances of 1.5, 3, and 6 m. At each distance, SNR was obtained under three device settings: hearing aid microphone alone, wireless remote microphone alone, and hearing aid microphone and wireless remote microphone simultaneously.Results: At each test distance, for both adult and pediatric groups, speech-in-noise recognition thresholds were significantly lower with the use of the wireless remote microphone in comparison with the hearing aid microphones alone (P < 0.05), indicating better SNR performance with the wireless remote microphone. Moreover, when the wireless remote microphone was used, test distance had no effect on speech-in-noise recognition for either adults or children.Conclusion: Wireless remote microphone technology can significantly improve speech recognition performance in challenging listening environments for Mandarin speaking hearing aid users in China.

Speech-Recognition Performance after Long-Term Hearing Aid Use

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (04) ◽  
pp. 292-303
Author(s):  
Janet E. Shanks ◽  
Richard H. Wilson ◽  
Patricia Stelmachowicz ◽  
Gene W. Bratt ◽  
David W. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Stimulus Level ◽  
Original Study ◽  
Noise Condition ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Larson et al (2000) reported the findings of a multicenter, NIDCD/VA clinical trial that compared hearing aid performance for three output limiting circuits in 360 adults with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The current study was undertaken to examine long-term hearing aid benefit in this same group of participants following five to six years of hearing aid use. The speech-recognition portion of the follow-up study enrolled 108 participants from the original study, 85% of whom were current hearing aid users and 15% of whom had not worn hearing aids during the past month (nonusers). Recognition performance in sound field on the NU-6 (quiet at 62 dB SPL) and the CST (quiet at 74 dB SPL and with -3 and 3 dB signal-to-babble ratios [S/B] at 62 and 74 dB SPL) was measured unaided and aided whenever possible. Speech-recognition abilities decreased significantly since the original study. Speech-recognition decrements were observed regardless of the speech materials (NU-6 and CST), test condition (quiet and noise), S/B (-3 and 3 dB), or stimulus level (62 and 74 dB SPL). Despite decreases in speech recognition, hearing aid benefit remained largely unchanged since the original study; aided performance exceeded unaided performance regardless of presentation level or noise condition. As in the original study, the relations among stimulus level, S/B, and speech-recognition performance were complex. Larson y col. (2000) reportaron los hallazgos de un estudio clínicos multicéntrico del NIDCD/VA que comparó el desempeño en el uso de auxiliares auditivos (AA) con tres circuitos de limitación de la salida, en 360 adultos con pérdida auditiva sensorineural simétrica. El estudio actual fue conducido para examinar el beneficio a largo plazo del AA en el mismo grupo de participantes, luego de cinco a seis años de utilización del AA. La porción de reconocimiento de lenguaje del estudio de seguimiento involucró a 108 participantes del estudio original, 85% de los cuáles eran actuales usuarios de AA y 15% que no habían usado AA durante el mes anterior (no usuarios). El desempeño en reconocimiento del lenguaje en campo sonoro con el NU-6 (en silencio a 62 dB SPL) y con el CST (en silencio a 74 dB SPL, y con tasas de señal/balbuceo de -3 y +3 dB [S&B] a 62 y 74 dB SPL), fue medido con y sin amplificación cuando resultó posible. Las habilidades de reconocimiento del lenguaje habían disminuido significativamente desde el estudio original. Se observó reducción en el reconocimiento del lenguaje independientemente del material logoaudiométrico (NU-6 y CST), las condiciones de la prueba (en silencio o en ruido), S/B (-3 y +3 dB), o la intensidad del estímulo (62 y 74 dB SPL). A pesar de la disminución en el reconocimiento del lenguaje, el beneficio del AA permaneció sin cambios en relación al estudio original; el desempeño con amplificación superó el desempeño sin amplificación sin importar la intensidad de la presentación o las condiciones de ruido. Al igual que en el estudio original, las relaciones entre el nivel de estímulo, la S/B y el desempeño en el reconocimiento de lenguaje fueron complejas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document