In situ Hearing Tests for the Purpose of a Self-Fit Hearing Aid

Boymans, Monique; Dreschler, Wouter A.

doi:10.1159/000457829

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are in line with the findings from more recent studies ( Boymans & Dreschler, 2017 ; Vercammen, 2020 ). In Vercammen (2020) , thresholds measured with conventional and in-situ audiometry using Phonak hearing aids exhibited a high correlation, with a mean difference of less than 1 dB HL across a substantial sample of 167,722 hearing aid logs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Ninety-five percent of the differences fell within 15 dB HL. Boymans & Dreschler (2017) reported good test-retest reliability for in-situ audiometry (SD < 3.7 dB), and it compared favorably to conventional audiometry (SD < 5.2 dB). In our study, the mean interparticipant differences between conventional and in-situ audiometry were within ± 5 dB for all tested hearing aids across frequencies of 250–6000 Hz, which are crucial frequencies for speech.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…However, in-situ audiometry has regained attention in the context of remote hearing health care and self-fitting hearing aids ( Boymans & Dreschler, 2017 ; Convery et al, 2019 ; Wong, 2011 ), or when REM equipment is not available or feasible ( Almufarrij et al, 2021 ). In this setting, in-situ audiometry should be valid and reliable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The approach was originally introduced by Widex to improve the accuracy of the hearing aid fitting ( Ludvigsen & Tøpholm, 1997 ) and has gained further attention in recent years in the context of connected hearing care or teleaudiology. Its lower resource and equipment requirements, compared to the recommended clinical standard involving conventional audiometry and real-ear measurements (REM), make it appealing and potentially suitable for remote hearing aid fitting and locations lacking standard audiometric equipment ( Boymans & Dreschler, 2017 ; Convery et al, 2019 ; Glista et al, 2023 ; Wong, 2011 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Van Eeckhoutte,

Jasper,

Kjærbøl

et al. 2024

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Van Eeckhoutte,

Jasper,

Kjærbøl

et al. 2024

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the advent of over the counter hearing aids, and the aim to better serve patients needing amplification devices, it becomes necessary to fit those devices to their needs 18 , 34 – 40 . This study validates the Gaussian Process classification as a robust procedure for assessing hearing with a hearing aid for in-situ fitting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-situ hearing threshold estimation using Gaussian process classification

Boven,

Roberts,

Biggus

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One in six Americans suffers from hearing loss. While treatment with amplification is possible for many, the acceptance rate of hearing aids is low. Poor device fitting is one of the reasons. The hearing aid fitting starts with a detailed hearing assessment by a trained audiologist in a sound-controlled environment, using standard equipment. The hearing aid is adjusted step-by-step, following well-described procedures based on the audiogram. However, for many patients in rural settings, considerable travel time to a hearing center discourages them from receiving a hearing test and treatment. We hypothesize that hearing assessment with the patient’s hearing aid can reliably substitute the hearing test in the clinic. Over-the-counter hearing aids could be programmed from a distance and fine-tuned by the hearing aid wearer. This study shows that a patient-controlled hearing assessment via a hearing aid in a non-clinical setting is not statistically different from an audiologist-controlled hearing assessment in a clinical setting. The differences in hearing obtained with our device and the Gaussian Process are within 3 dB of the standard audiogram. At 250 Hz, the sound delivery with the hearing aid used in this study added an additional reduction of sound level, which was not compensated.

show abstract

Comparing Self-Fitting Strategies for Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids

Knoetze,

Manchaiah,

De Sousa

et al. 2024

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceFewer than 20% of US adults with hearing loss use hearing aids due to barriers like high cost. Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids offer a potential solution, incorporating self-fitting strategies via smartphone apps. Self-fitting strategies have been validated for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved OTC hearing aids compared with prescription-based approaches. However, no direct comparative analysis exists between in situ audiometry and self-adjustment strategies using self-fitting OTC (OTC-SF) hearing aids.ObjectiveTo compare self-adjustment and in situ audiometry self-fitting strategies in OTC-SF hearing aids for adults with mild to moderate hearing difficulties.Design Settings and ParticipantsA crossover, within-participant pseudorandomized clinical trial was conducted between July and November 2023. Twenty-eight participants were pseudo-randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 self-fitting strategies, and they experienced both interventions for 4 consecutive weeks.InterventionsThe self-adjustment group manually adjusted settings, including overall gain and spectral tilt, using Lexie B2 hearing aids, while the in situ audiometry group used Lexie B2 Plus hearing aids (Lexie Hearing by hearX Group), with an automated fitting based on in situ tests conducted through the app.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Secondary outcomes were International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), speech-in-noise tests (DIN and QuickSIN), and real-ear measurements (REMs). Measures were completed at baseline and after the 4-week field trial using each strategy.ResultsTwenty-eight participants (mean [SD] age, 60.2 [12.0] years) were included; 14 men and 14 women. Self-adjustment and in situ audiometry strategies produced no clinically meaningful differences across various outcome measures, including overall APHAB benefit (Cohen d = 0.2; 95% CI, −0.2 to 0.6) and overall IOI-HA satisfaction (Rosenthal r = 0.0; 95% CI, −0.3 to 0.2). Self-adjustment users reported higher satisfaction (Rosenthal r = −0.4; 95% CI, −0.6 to −0.1) and longer daily use (Rosenthal r = −0.3; 95% CI, –0.5 to 0.0) compared with those using in situ audiometry. No clinically meaningful differences were observed in speech-in-noise benefit and real-ear measurements.Conclusion and RelevanceIn this clinical trial of OTC-SF hearing aids, self-adjustment and in situ audiometry strategies resulted in similar outcomes. However, self-adjustment may produce higher satisfaction and longer daily use, highlighting the potential advantages of active user involvement in the fitting process. Further investigation is needed for long-term outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05782153

show abstract

In situ Hearing Tests for the Purpose of a Self-Fit Hearing Aid

Cited by 6 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

In-situ hearing threshold estimation using Gaussian process classification

Comparing Self-Fitting Strategies for Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About