Differences in Word and Phoneme Recognition in Quiet, Sentence Recognition in Noise, and Subjective Outcomes between Manufacturer First-Fit and Hearing Aids Programmed to NAL-NL2 Using Real-Ear Measures

Valente, Michael; Oeding, Kristi; Brockmeyer, Alison; Smith, Steven P.; Kallogjeri, Dorina

doi:10.3766/jaaa.17005

Cited by 32 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another explanation could be that the gain prescription was limited to NAL-NL2 in all conditions. Apart from advanced HA features, the amplification rationale can also affect aided speech perception ( Valente et al., 2018 ). Previous research has suggested that benefit from HA amplification varies with the shape of the audiogram ( Keidser & Grant, 2001 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Effects of Four Auditory Profiles on Speech Recognition, Overall Quality, and Noise Annoyance With Simulated Hearing-Aid Processing Strategies

Sanchez-Lopez

El-Haj-Ali

et al. 2020

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective hearing aid (HA) rehabilitation requires personalization of the HA fitting parameters, but in current clinical practice only the gain prescription is typically individualized. To optimize the fitting process, advanced HA settings such as noise reduction and microphone directionality can also be tailored to individual hearing deficits. In two earlier studies, an auditory test battery and a data-driven approach that allow classifying hearing-impaired listeners into four auditory profiles were developed. Because these profiles were found to be characterized by markedly different hearing abilities, it was hypothesized that more tailored HA fittings would lead to better outcomes for such listeners. Here, we explored potential interactions between the four auditory profiles and HA outcome as assessed with three different measures (speech recognition, overall quality, and noise annoyance) and six HA processing strategies with various noise reduction, directionality, and compression settings. Using virtual acoustics, a realistic speech-in-noise environment was simulated. The stimuli were generated using a HA simulator and presented to 49 habitual HA users who had previously been profiled. The four auditory profiles differed clearly in terms of their mean aided speech reception thresholds, thereby implying different needs in terms of signal-to-noise ratio improvement. However, no clear interactions with the tested HA processing strategies were found. Overall, these findings suggest that the auditory profiles can capture some of the individual differences in HA processing needs and that further research is required to identify suitable HA solutions for them.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Effects of Four Auditory Profiles on Speech Recognition, Overall Quality, and Noise Annoyance With Simulated Hearing-Aid Processing Strategies

Sanchez-Lopez

El-Haj-Ali

et al. 2020

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The timing of outcome data varied from the day of fitting ( Chang et al., 2018 ) to 6 weeks postfitting (e.g., Abrams et al., 2012 ). Three studies ( Denys et al., 2019 ; Karimi et al., 2016 ; Valente et al., 2018 ) were conducted in university clinics, in Belgium, Iran, and the United States, respectively. Of the remaining studies, one was based in a veterans’ clinic in the United States ( Abrams et al., 2012 ), one in audiology clinics in the Netherlands ( Boymans & Dreschler, 2012 ), and one in an audiology clinic at a tertiary hospital in Korea ( Chang et al., 2018 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The level of experience with hearing aids was reported in all studies as either a binary variable (experienced vs. first time) or the length of hearing aid experience in months. Four studies mainly involved experienced users ( Abrams et al., 2012 ; Chang et al., 2018 ; Denys et al., 2019 ; Karimi et al., 2016 ), one study used first-time users ( Valente et al., 2018 ), and one involved a mix of experienced and first-time users ( Boymans & Dreschler, 2012 ). Of the studies who used experienced users, two reported the length of participants’ experience in months ( Chang et al., 2018 ; Denys et al., 2019 ), which ranged from 2 to 222 months.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Probe-Tube Verification of Real-Ear Hearing Aid Amplification Characteristics Improve Outcomes in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review, the first on this topic, aimed to investigate if probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improves outcomes in adults. The review was preregistered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. After assessing more than 1,420 records from seven databases, six experimental studies (published between 2012 and 2019) met the inclusion criteria; five were included in the meta-analyses. The primary outcome of interest (hearing-specific, health-related quality of life) was not reported in any study. There were moderate and statistically significant positive effects of probe-tube real-ear measurement (REM), compared with the manufacturer’s initial fit, on speech intelligibility in quiet settings (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.59) and user’s final preference (proportion difference: 52.2%). There were small but statistically significant positive effects of REM on self-reported listening abilities (SMD: 0.22) and speech intelligibility in noise (SMD: 0.15). The quality of evidence for these outcomes ranged from high to very low. The findings show that REMs improve outcomes statistically, but this is based on a small number of studies and a limited number of participants. It is currently unclear if the benefits are of material importance because minimum clinically important differences have not been established for most of the outcomes. Ultimately, there needs to be a cost-effectiveness analysis to show that statistically significant benefits, which exceed the minimum clinically important difference, are worth the cost involved.

show abstract

“…Verification of the hearing aid using probe-tube microphone or coupler-based simulated real-ear improves fit-totarget accuracy of the manufacturers' software-derived fittings 3,6,7 and has also been associated with several positive treatment outcomes. [8][9][10][11] However, rates of consistent probetube microphone verification have remained low in clinical practice. Previous survey data have reported rates between 30 and 44% for consistent probe-tube microphone verification from audiologists and hearing instrument specialists.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fit-to-Targets and Aided Speech Intelligibility Index Values for Hearing Aids Fitted to the DSL v5-Adult Prescription

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Matching hearing aid output levels to prescribed targets is a component of preferred practice, yet recent normative data on appropriateness of fittings are lacking. Verification measures that assess closeness of fit-to-target include raw deviations from target, root-mean-squared-error (RMSE) deviations from target, and aided Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) values. Establishing normative ranges for these measures may help hearing professionals determine whether a patient's fit-to-targets and/or aided speech audibility is typical for his or her degree of hearing loss. Purpose This article aims to characterize the range of fit-to-target and the range of aided SII associated with hearing aid fittings using the Desired Sensation Level version 5.0 (DSL v5-adult) prescription with adults, considering also hearing aid style, venting, and audiometric characteristics. Research design A descriptive and correlational study of data collected from a retrospective chart review. Results Hearing aid fittings to 281 ears were compiled. The four-frequency average deviation from target (RMSE) was within ± 5 dB of target in 77% of fittings for mid-level speech. Deviation from targets increased with hearing loss, particularly when the loss is greater than 85 dB hearing level or if the loss was steeply sloping. Venting increased the deviation from targets in the low frequencies. Aided SII values strongly correlated with the participants' hearing thresholds. Clinical ranges for RMSE and aided SII were developed for characterization of fitting outcomes. Conclusion Fitting to DSL v5-adult targets was observed within ± 5 dB absolute deviation, or within 5 dB RMSE, on average for typical adult hearing aid fittings. Confidence intervals for deviation from target and aided SII are proposed.

show abstract

Differences in Word and Phoneme Recognition in Quiet, Sentence Recognition in Noise, and Subjective Outcomes between Manufacturer First-Fit and Hearing Aids Programmed to NAL-NL2 Using Real-Ear Measures

Cited by 32 publications

References 22 publications

Investigating the Effects of Four Auditory Profiles on Speech Recognition, Overall Quality, and Noise Annoyance With Simulated Hearing-Aid Processing Strategies

Investigating the Effects of Four Auditory Profiles on Speech Recognition, Overall Quality, and Noise Annoyance With Simulated Hearing-Aid Processing Strategies

Does Probe-Tube Verification of Real-Ear Hearing Aid Amplification Characteristics Improve Outcomes in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Fit-to-Targets and Aided Speech Intelligibility Index Values for Hearing Aids Fitted to the DSL v5-Adult Prescription

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About