Search

Purpose: This paper describes the results from the iterative development and usability testing of an online audiological rehabilitation (OAR) program. The OAR was based on previous experience with Internet interventions and OAR. Method: The described OAR consisted of weekly learning modules, each of which had a specific topic and contained information and learning activities. A virtual coach, a trained audiologist, led the participants through the modules. The participants' feedback was collected using the "think-aloud" method in which the participants gave their feedback in a structured manner. Results: The early findings from the first version of the OAR showed that participants had difficulty navigating the system. As a result of the usability testing, a second major edition of the OAR program was developed, and the participants found it easier to manage and that it enhanced the learning experience. The participants appreciated the testimonial videos as well as the option to study more in-depth material for a given subject. Conclusions: The early findings from the usability test of the program provided useful information as to how content can be developed and delivered for optimal user accessibility within the scope of OAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ideally, a hearing aid should pick up and amplify the sound, which is present just in front of the ear drum in the open ear. This would enable a well-defined insertion gain to be obtained, as prescribed by a given fitting rationale. In reality, the hearing aid picks up the sound at another location, its physical presence obstructs the ear canal, and furthermore, the hearing-aid gain is specified in a coupler and not in the individual ear. These issues are normally compensated for by including various acoustical transforms (ATs) in the prescription of the hearing-aid gain. Even though large individual variations in ATs are known to exist, the applied ATs are typically standardized values. The aim of this study was to investigate whether use of individual rather than standardized ATs has the potential to improve the perceived sound quality of hearing aids. The study included 18 normal-hearing participants. The sound quality corresponding to five different frequency responses was assessed in a paired-comparison test design. The frequency responses represented various degrees of AT individualization, ranging from no individualization (use of standardized ATs) to full individualization (based on individual measurements performed as accurately as possible). Stimuli were five different sound samples, presented via insert earphones. The results indicated that use of individualized ATs has the potential to offer a significant improvement in perceived sound quality. However, low-resolution (smoothed) rather than spectrally detailed versions of the individual ATs were generally preferred. Furthermore, a notable individual variation in the preference pattern was observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]