Real ear measurement methods for open fit hearing aids: Modified pressure concurrent equalization (MPCE) versus modified pressure stored equalization (MPSE)

Aazh, Hashir; Moore, Brian C. J.; Prasher, Deepak

doi:10.3109/14992027.2011.609182

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A concern with the modified pressure method with stored equalization is that movement of the participant's head can lead to changes in the sound field and thus to errors in REIG (Shaw, 2010). Aazh et al (2012) have shown that the modified pressure method with stored equalization can be used if the participants can keep their head still during the measurements.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of real ear insertion gain in behind-the-ear hearing aids with different coupling systems to the ear canal

Jespersen¹,

Møller²

2013

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe last decade has offered a multitude of instant fit coupling systems to be fitted with behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids. The impact of these designs on the reliability of real ear measurements (REMs) has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to obtain REM reliability data for instant fit coupling systems.DesignREM reliability data was obtained for four different instant-fit coupling systems and for standard size 13 tubing and custom earmolds. REMs were performed for all five coupling systems two times and by two examiners.Study sampleTen normal-hearing individuals (20 ears) served as participants.ResultsThe REM test-retest reliability is high for the four instant fit coupling systems as well as for the custom earmolds. The REM inter-examiner reliability is high for three of the four instant fit coupling systems.ConclusionsCarrying out REMs with instant fit coupling systems appears to be fundamentally no different than performing REMs with conventional hearing aids. For either, care should be taken in probe tube placement in terms of insertion depth and maintaining the probe tube placement, and other best practices regarding test environment and test setup should be observed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of real ear insertion gain in behind-the-ear hearing aids with different coupling systems to the ear canal

Jespersen¹,

Møller²

2013

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While presenting speech-shaped noises (SSNs) or recorded speech, gains at frequency bands are adjusted to prescribed targets via hearing-aid fitting software. FGR curves based on fitting software commonly deviate from real-ear gains, and REMs help ensure that prescription targets are met (Aazh & Moore, 2007;Aazh et al, 2012;Leavitt et al, 2017). This procedure does not guarantee objective benefit nor patient satisfaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrimination of Gain Increments in Speech-Shaped Noises

Caswell-Midwinter

Whitmer

2019

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequency-dependent gain adjustments are routine in hearing-aid fittings, whether in matching to real-ear targets or fine-tuning to patient feedback. Patient feedback may be unreliable and fittings inefficient if adjustments are not discriminable. To examine what gain adjustments are discriminable, we measured the just-noticeable differences (JNDs) for level increments in speech-shaped noises processed with prescription gains. JNDs were measured in the better ears of 38 participants with hearing impairment using a fixed-level, same-different task. JNDs were measured for increments at six individual frequency-bands: a 0.25-kHz low-pass band; octave-wide bands at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz; and a 6-kHz high-pass band. JNDs for broadband increments were also measured. JNDs were estimated at d’ of 1 for a minimally discriminable increment in optimal laboratory conditions. The JND for frequency-band increments was 2.8 dB excluding the 0.25-kHz low-pass band, for which the JND was 4.5 dB. The JND for broadband increments was 1.5 dB. Participants’ median frequency-band and broadband JNDs were positively correlated. JNDs were mostly independent of age, pure-tone thresholds, and cognitive score. In consideration of self-fitting adjustments in noisier conditions, JNDs were additionally estimated at a more sensitive d’ of 2. These JNDs were 6 dB for bands below 1 kHz, and 5 dB for bands at and above 1 kHz. Overall, the results suggest noticeable fine-tuning adjustments of 3 dB and self-fitting adjustments of 5 dB.

show abstract

“…The accuracy of the modified pressure method with stored equalization was evaluated by Shaw (2010) , and the results indicated that the method is clinically applicable. On the other hand, differences between the two modified pressure methods, with stored equalization and with concurrent equalization, are only observed for hearing aid gain settings of more than 20 dB and, therefore, do not seem to be necessary for mild to moderate hearing losses ( Aazh, Moore, & Prasher, 2012b ; Mueller & Ricketts, 2006 ).…”

Section: Disadvantages Of Open-fit Hearing Aidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open Versus Closed Hearing-Aid Fittings: A Literature Review of Both Fitting Approaches

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the main issues in hearing-aid fittings is the abnormal perception of the user’s own voice as too loud, “boomy,” or “hollow.” This phenomenon known as the occlusion effect be reduced by large vents in the earmolds or by open-fit hearing aids. This review provides an overview of publications related to open and closed hearing-aid fittings. First, the occlusion effect and its consequences for perception while using hearing aids are described. Then, the advantages and disadvantages of open compared with closed fittings and their impact on the fitting process are addressed. The advantages include less occlusion, improved own-voice perception and sound quality, and increased localization performance. The disadvantages associated with open-fit hearing aids include reduced benefits of directional microphones and noise reduction, as well as less compression and less available gain before feedback. The final part of this review addresses the need for new approaches to combine the advantages of open and closed hearing-aid fittings.

show abstract

Real ear measurement methods for open fit hearing aids: Modified pressure concurrent equalization (MPCE) versus modified pressure stored equalization (MPSE)

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Reliability of real ear insertion gain in behind-the-ear hearing aids with different coupling systems to the ear canal

Reliability of real ear insertion gain in behind-the-ear hearing aids with different coupling systems to the ear canal

Discrimination of Gain Increments in Speech-Shaped Noises

Open Versus Closed Hearing-Aid Fittings: A Literature Review of Both Fitting Approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About