Evaluation of a semi-supervised self-adjustment fine-tuning procedure for hearing aids

Gößwein, Jonathan Albert; Rennies, Jan; Hüber, Rainer; Bruns, Tobias; Hildebrandt, Andrea; Kollmeier, Birger

doi:10.1080/14992027.2022.2028022

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, no further investigation was conducted in this regard. In the test-retest procedure, the statements of Gößwein et al [11] and Rennies et al [17], that participants were able to make reproducible settings with the help of the 2D-Surface UI, was confirmed. Furthermore, a significant correlation was also observed with the help of the Equalizer UI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…In everyday situations, this could lead to an individual adjustment of the sound and to an improvement of the auditory sensation. This concept of self fitting was previously investigated for HAs by Gößwein et al [11] and for cochlea implants by Vroegop et al [6] and Botros et al [13]. They showed that self-fitting led to a higher acceptance of the sound in different environments but not to a higher speech intelligibility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The 2D-Surface UI in Figure 2a is based on the concepts presented by Dreschler et al [16], Gößwein et al [11], and Rennies et al [17]. In this approach, the participant can adjust the corresponding sound parameters by moving a point in a square.…”

Section: D-surface Uimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fine-tuned HA or CI is then worn by the user under different listening conditions in everyday life. Further appointments for fine-tuning generally follow, until a setting is found that is satisfactory for the user [11,12]. Such a fitting process may therefore take several sessions, and the final setting is very dependent on the experience of the expert and the time spent with the participant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, other experimental approaches to a user interface can be found in the literature. One of these is the 2D-Surface UI that was used by Dreschler et al [16] and examined in more detail by Gößwein et al [11] and Rennies et al [17]. With the help of this UI, the user can change the sound impression by moving a point with the fingertip on a touch-sensitive rectangular surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Two Self-Fitting User Interfaces for Bimodal CI-Recipients

Kliesch,

Chalupper,

Lenarz

et al. 2023

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smartphones are increasingly being used to enable patients to play an active role in managing their own health through applications, also called apps. The latest generation of sound processors for cochlear implants offer Bluetooth connectivity that makes it possible to connect smartphones or tablets and thus enable patients to modify their hearing sensation or measure system parameters. However, to achieve a high adoption rate and secure operation of these applications, it is necessary to design intuitive user interfaces (UI) for end users. The main goal of the current study was to evaluate the usability of two different UIs. A second goal was to compare the hearing outcomes based on the patient’s adjustments. The two different UIs were explored in a group of adult and older adult bimodal cochlear-implant users, with adjustments possible for both the cochlear implant and the contralateral hearing aid. One of the UIs comprised a classical equalizer and volume-dial approach, while the second UI followed a 2D-Surface concept, to manipulate the corresponding sound parameters. The participants changed their fitting parameters using both UIs in seven different sound scenes. The self-adjusted settings for the different scenarios were stored and recalled at a later stage for direct comparison. To enable an assessment of reliability and reproducibility, the self-adaptation was also repeated for two of the seven sound scenes. Within minutes, the participants became accustomed to the concept of both UIs and generated their own parameter settings. Both UIs resulted in settings that could be considered similar in terms of spontaneous acceptance and sound quality. Furthermore, both UIs showed high reliability in the test–retest procedure. The time required for adjustment was significantly shorter with the 2D-Surface UI. A closer look at the bimodal aspect shows that participants were able to compensate for differences in loudness and frequencies between the cochlear implant and the hearing aid. The blind comparison test showed that self-adjustment led to a higher acceptance of the sound perception in more than 80% of the cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: D-surface Uimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Two Self-Fitting User Interfaces for Bimodal CI-Recipients

Kliesch,

Chalupper,

Lenarz

et al. 2023

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Wie beeinflusst das eigenständige Einstellen von Hörsystemen den Erfolg einer Hörsystemversorgung?

2024

Sprache · Stimme · Gehör

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of adjustment behaviour in a semi-supervised self-adjustment fine-tuning procedure for hearing aids

Gößwein

Rennies

Winneke

et al. 2023

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nine scagnostics features are calculated using the minimum spanning tree (MST), the alpha hull, and the convex hull. This section briefly describes how to derive these three objects from a given scatterplot. Of the nine features, we focus on the four most important ones: outlying, skewed, convex and skinny as revealed by a principal component analysis (see section 3.1.). For more details regarding the MST, the alpha hull, the convex hull, and the calculation of the nine scagnostics features we refer to (Wilkinson et al., 2006).

show abstract

Evaluation of a semi-supervised self-adjustment fine-tuning procedure for hearing aids

Cited by 4 publications

References 52 publications

Evaluation of Two Self-Fitting User Interfaces for Bimodal CI-Recipients

Evaluation of Two Self-Fitting User Interfaces for Bimodal CI-Recipients

Wie beeinflusst das eigenständige Einstellen von Hörsystemen den Erfolg einer Hörsystemversorgung?

Evaluation of adjustment behaviour in a semi-supervised self-adjustment fine-tuning procedure for hearing aids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About