In-situ Audiometry Compared to Conventional Audiometry for Hearing Aid Fitting

Abstract

The use of in-situ audiometry for hearing aid fitting is appealing due to its reduced resource and equipment requirements compared to standard approaches employing conventional audiometry alongside real-ear measures. However, its validity has been a subject of debate, as previous studies noted differences between hearing thresholds measured using conventional and in-situ audiometry. The differences were particularly notable for open-fit hearing aids, attributed to low-frequency leakage caused by the vent. Here, in-situ audiometry was investigated for six receiver-in-canal hearing aids from different manufacturers through three experiments. In Experiment I, the hearing aid gain was measured to investigate whether corrections were implemented to the prescribed target gain. In Experiment II, the in-situ stimuli were recorded to investigate if corrections were directly incorporated to the delivered in-situ stimulus. Finally, in Experiment III, hearing thresholds using in-situ and conventional audiometry were measured with real patients wearing open-fit hearing aids. Results indicated that (1) the hearing aid gain remained unaffected when measured with in-situ or conventional audiometry for all open-fit measurements, (2) the in-situ stimuli were adjusted for up to 30 dB at frequencies below 1000 Hz for all open-fit hearing aids except one, which also recommends the use of closed domes for all in-situ measurements, and (3) the mean interparticipant threshold difference fell within 5 dB for frequencies between 250 and 6000 Hz. The results clearly indicated that modern measured in-situ thresholds align (within 5 dB) with conventional thresholds measured, indicating the potential of in-situ audiometry for remote hearing care.