Search

Background Hearing aid fitting guidelines recommend real ear measures (REM) to verify hearing aid performance. Unfortunately, approximately 70 to 80% of clinicians do not use REM, but instead download manufacturer first-fit. Studies report differences in performance between first-fit and programmed-fit with greatest differences in the higher frequencies. Recently, hearing aid and real ear analyzer (REA) manufacturers allow REA communication with hearing aid software feature to automatically program hearing aids to target. Little research is available reporting the accuracy of this feature. Purpose The aim of the study is to examine whether differences exist at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL between two ReSound first-fit formulae (Audiogram+ and NAL-NL2) using ReSound AutoREM and Aurical NAL-NL2 Research Design The study design is of repeated measure type. Study Sample The study sample includes 48 ears. Data Collection and Analysis For the two fitting formulae, AutoREM real ear insertion gain (REIG) was measured at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL and compared with measures from Aurical NAL-NL2. Results Mean AutoREM REIG for ReSound NAL-NL2 was 3 to 8 dB below Aurical NAL-NL2 for 50 dB SPL, within 1 to 3 dB for 65 dB SPL and 1 to 5 dB above for 80 dB SPL. Mean AutoREM REIG for Audiogram + was 1 to 12 dB below Aurical NAL-NL2 for 50 dB SPL, within 2 to 5 dB for 65 dB SPL and 1 to 7 dB above NAL-NL2 for 80 dB SPL. Conclusion Relative to the Aurical NAL-NL2, AutoREM REIG50 for Audiogram + and ReSound NAL-NL2 was lower. Relative to the Aurical NAL-NL2, AutoREM REIG65 for Audiogram + was higher at 1,000 Hz and lower at 4,000 to 6,000 Hz and for ReSound NAL-NL2 it was lower at 500 Hz and 4,000 Hz and higher at 3,000 Hz. Relative to the Aurical NAL-NL2, AutoREM REIG80 for Audiogram + was higher at 500 to 3,000 Hz and 6,000 Hz and ReSound NAL-NL2 was higher at 500 to 6,000 Hz. Because of wide intersubject variability clinicians should continue to use REM as a “check and balance” when using AutoREM.

Background Best practice guidelines for verifying fittings of bone-anchored hearing devices (BAHD) recommend using aided sound-field thresholds (ASFT), but express caution regarding the variables impacting obtaining valid and reliable ASFTs.1 Recently, a skull simulator was introduced to facilitate programming BAHD devices in force level (FL) to desired sensation level-bone conduction devices (skull simulator/DSL-BCD)2 3 targets in a hearing aid analyzer. Currently, no evidence is available reporting if differences in measured FL using the manufacturer first-fit (FF) and word recognition in quiet, sentence reception threshold in noise, and subjective outcomes are present for a BAHD programmed using ASFT versus programmed using skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. Purpose The aim of this study was to examine if significant differences were present in FL using the FF and word recognition in quiet at 50 and 65 decibel of sound pressure level (dB SPL), sentence reception threshold in noise and subjective outcomes using the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB), and speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing (SSQ) between a BAHD fit using ASFT or skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. Research Design A double-blind randomized crossover design with 15 adults having unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. All participants were successful users of the Cochlear America Baha 5. Data Collection and Analysis Baha Power 5 devices were fit using FF, ASFT, and skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. Order of the three fitting strategies was randomly assigned and counter-balanced. Results No significant differences were found for a BAHD device programmed using ASFT versus skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets for consonant-nucleus-consonant words in quiet at 50 or 65 dB SPL, sentence reception threshold in noise, the APHAB or SSQ. There were, however, significant differences, at primarily 500 to 2,000 Hz in measured FLs between the FF, ASFT, and skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets at 50 and 65 dB SPL. Conclusions There were no significant differences in subject performance with two speech measures and subjective responses to two questionnaires for BAHD fittings using ASFT versus using skull simulator/DSL-BCD targets. Differences in FL between the three fitting strategies were present primarily at 500 to 2,000 Hz. Limitations of the study are highlighted along with situations where the skull simulator can play a significantly beneficial role when fitting BAHD devices.

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and American Academy of Audiology (AAA) have created Best Practice Guidelines for fitting hearing aids to adult patients. These guidelines recommend using real-ear measures (REM) to verify that measured output/gain of hearing aid(s) match a validated prescriptive target. Unfortunately, approximately 70–80% of audiologists do not routinely use REM when fitting hearing aids, instead relying on a manufacturer default “first-fit” setting. This is problematic because numerous studies report significant differences in REM between manufacturer first-fit and the same hearing aids using a REM or programmed-fit. These studies reported decreased prescribed gain/output in the higher frequencies for the first-fit compared with the programmed fit, which are important for recognizing speech. Currently, there is little research in peer-reviewed journals reporting if differences between hearing aids fitted using a manufacturer first-fit versus a programmed-fit result in significant differences in speech recognition in quiet, noise, and subjective outcomes.To examine if significant differences were present in monosyllabic word and phoneme recognition (consonant-nucleus-consonant; CNC) in quiet, sentence recognition in noise (Hearing in Noise Test; HINT), and subjective outcomes using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ) questionnaires between hearing aids fit using one manufacturer’s first-fit and the same hearing aids with a programmed-fit using REM to National Acoustic Laboratories Nonlinear Version 2 (NAL-NL2) prescriptive target.A double-blind randomized crossover design was used. Throughout the study, one investigator performed all REM whereas a second investigator measured speech recognition in quiet, noise, and scored subjective outcome measures.Twenty-four adults with bilateral normal sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss with no prior experience with amplification.The hearing aids were fit using the proprietary manufacturer default first-fit and a programmed-fit to NAL-NL2 using real-ear insertion gain measures. The order of the two fittings was randomly assigned and counterbalanced. Participants acclimatized to each setting for four weeks and returned for assessment of performance via the revised CNC word lists, HINT, APHAB, and SSQ for the respective fitting.(1) A significant median advantage of 15% (p < 0.001; 95% CI: 9.7–24.3%) for words and 7.7% (p < 0.001; 95% CI: 5.9–10.9%) for phonemes for the programmed-fit compared with first-fit at 50 dB sound pressure level (SPL) and 4% (p < 0.01; 95% CI: 1.7–6.3%) for words at 65 dB SPL; (2) No significant differences for the HINT reception threshold for sentences (RTS); (3) A significant median advantage of 4.2% [p < 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.6–13.2%] for the programmed-fit compared with the first-fit for the background noise subscale problem score for the APHAB; (4) No significant differences on the SSQ.Improved word and phoneme recognition for soft and words for average speech in quiet were reported for the programmed-fit. Seventy-nine percent of the participants preferred the programmed-fitting versus first-fit. Hearing aids, therefore, should be verified and programmed using REM to a prescriptive target versus no verification using a first-fit.

Background: Difficulty understanding in background noise is a common complaint of cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Programming options are available to improve speech recognition in noise for CI users including automatic dynamic range optimization (ADRO), autosensitivity control (ASC), and a two-stage adaptive beamforming algorithm (BEAM). However, the processing option that results in the best speech recognition in noise is unknown. In addition, laboratory measures of these processing options often show greater degrees of improvement than reported by participants in everyday listening situations. To address this issue, Compton-Conley and colleagues developed a test system to replicate a restaurant environment. The R-SPACE™ consists of eight loudspeakers positioned in a 360 degree arc and utilizes a recording made at a restaurant of background noise. Purpose: The present study measured speech recognition in the R-SPACE with four processing options: standard dual-port directional (STD), ADRO, ASC, and BEAM. Research Design: A repeated-measures, within-subject design was used to evaluate the four different processing options at two noise levels. Study Sample: Twenty-seven unilateral and three bilateral adult Nucleus Freedom CI recipients. Intervention: The participants’ everyday program (with no additional processing) was used as the STD program. ADRO, ASC, and BEAM were added individually to the STD program to create a total of four programs. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants repeated Hearing in Noise Test sentences presented at 0 degrees azimuth with R-SPACE restaurant noise at two noise levels, 60 and 70 dB SPL. The reception threshold for sentences (RTS) was obtained for each processing condition and noise level. Results: In 60 dB SPL noise, BEAM processing resulted in the best RTS, with a significant improvement over STD and ADRO processing. In 70 dB SPL noise, ASC and BEAM processing had significantly better mean RTSs compared to STD and ADRO processing. Comparison of noise levels showed that STD and BEAM processing resulted in significantly poorer RTSs in 70 dB SPL noise compared to the performance with these processing conditions in 60 dB SPL noise. Bilateral participants demonstrated a bilateral improvement compared to the better monaural condition for both noise levels and all processing conditions, except ASC in 60 dB SPL noise. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the use of processing options that utilize noise reduction, like those available in ASC and BEAM, improve a CI recipient's ability to understand speech in noise in listening situations similar to those experienced in the real world. The choice of the best processing option is dependent on the noise level, with BEAM best at moderate noise levels and ASC best at loud noise levels for unilateral CI recipients. Therefore, multiple noise programs or a combination of processing options may be necessary to provide CI users with the best performance in a variety of listening situations.