Clinical Verification of Hearing Aid Performance

Munro, Kevin J.; Mueller, H. Gustav

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33036-5_9

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there has been a constant and steady improvement in the manufacturer's approximations of prescriptions, some differences in gain between initial fit and REM may continue to exist even in newer generations of hearing aid. That is, if the average ear canal acoustics, microphone location, and earmold characteristic effects used in a given hearing aid correction algorithm vary from the individual values, the hearing aid software may not be able to accurately approximate prescription targets (Munro & Mueller, 2016).…”

Section: Deviation From Prescription Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Listening Preferences of New Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Registered, Double-Blind, Randomized, Mixed-Methods Clinical Trial of Initial Versus Real-Ear Fit

Almufarrij,

Dillon,

Adams

et al. 2023

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hearing aid verification with real-ear measurement (REM) is recommended in clinical practice. Improvements, over time, in accuracy of manufacturers’ initial fit mean the benefit of routine REM for new adult users is unclear. This registered, double-blinded, randomized, mixed-methods clinical trial aimed to (i) determine whether new adult hearing aid users prefer initial or real-ear fit and (ii) investigate the reasons for preferences. New adult hearing aid users ( n = 45) were each fitted with two programs: the initial fit and real-ear fit, both with adjustments based on immediate feedback from the patient. Participants were asked to complete daily paired-comparisons of the two programs with a magnitude estimation of the preference, one for each of clarity/comfort in quiet/noise as well as overall preference. The results revealed gain adjustment requests were low in number and small in magnitude. Deviation from NAL-NL2 targets (after adjustment for a 65 dB SPL input) was close to zero, except at high frequencies where real-ear fits were around 3 dB closer to target. There was no difference in clarity ratings between programs, but comfort ratings favored initial fit. Overall, 10 participants (22%) expressed a preference for real-ear fit. Reasons for preference were primarily based on comfort with the initial fit and clarity with real-ear fit. It may be acceptable to fit new adult users with mild-to-moderate hearing loss without the need for REMs, if the primary outcome of interest is user preference. It remains to be seen if the findings generalize to other fitting software, other outcome measures and more severe hearing loss.

show abstract

Section: Deviation From Prescription Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Listening Preferences of New Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Registered, Double-Blind, Randomized, Mixed-Methods Clinical Trial of Initial Versus Real-Ear Fit

Almufarrij,

Dillon,

Adams

et al. 2023

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 7 The ultimate goals for hearing aids are to restore the audibility of soft level sounds, maximise the intelligibility of conversational-level sounds and ensure that loud sounds are within comfortable levels. 8 In the early 1940s and 1950s, the most controversial aspects of clinical audiology were hearing aid selection and fitting, as experts could not agree on the most Strengths and limitations of this study ► The primary outcome is listening preference, measured in a within-group (cross-over) experiment, but both within-group and between-group design studies will be included as the latter design can contribute to secondary outcomes. ► Amplification devices preprogrammed for generic mild or moderate hearing loss will be included among the non-individually programmed devices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the outcome of fitting hearing aids to adults affected by whether an audiogram-based prescription formula is individually applied? A systematic review protocol

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionHearing aids are typically programmed using the individual’s audiometric thresholds. Developments in technology have resulted in a new category of direct-to-consumer devices, which are not programmed using the individual’s audiometric thresholds. This review aims to identify whether programming hearing aids using the individual’s audiogram-based prescription results in better outcomes for adults with hearing loss.Methods and analysisThe methods of this review are reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. On 23 August 2020, eight different databases were systematically searched without any restrictions: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare and Academic Search Premier. To ensure that this review includes the most recent evidence, the searches will be repeated at the final write-up stage. The population of interest of this review will be adults with any degree or type of hearing loss. The studies should compare hearing aids programmed using an audiogram-based prescription (and verified in the real ear) with those not programmed on the basis of the individual’s audiogram. The primary outcome of interest is consumers’ listening preferences. Hearing-specific health-related quality of life, self-reported listening ability, speech intelligibility of words and sentences in quiet and noisy situations, sound quality ratings and adverse events are the secondary outcomes of interest. Both randomised and non-randomised controlled trials will be included. The quality of each individual study and the overall evidence will be assessed using Downs and Black’s checklist and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool, respectively.Ethics and disseminationWe will only retrieve and analyse data from published studies, so no ethical approval is required. The review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020197232.

show abstract