Using Trainable Hearing Aids to Examine Real-World Preferred Gain

Mueller, H. Gustav; Hornsby, Benjamin W. Y.; Weber, Jennifer E.

doi:10.3766/jaaa.19.10.4

Cited by 36 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This would suggest that NAL-NL2 makes a better general starting point. As demonstrated in recent studies, starting from an appropriately prescribed baseline response is important as self-adjustments, or training of hearing aids, are biased by the starting point (Dreschler, Keidser, Convery, & Dillon, 2008;Keidsser, Convery, & Dillon, 2008a;Mueller, Hornsby, & Weber, 2008), which means that audiologist-driven finetuning probably is too. Because hearing aids are more likely to be equipped with a volume than a tone control, verifying the prescribed gain-frequency response shape, which results primarily from the speech intelligibility modeling in the optimization process described in Dillon et al (in press), should have highest priority in future evaluation studies.…”

Section: Evaluation and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

NAL-NL2 Empirical Adjustments

Keidser

Dillon

Carter

et al. 2012

Trends in Amplification

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NAL-NL1, the first procedure from the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) for prescribing nonlinear gain, was a purely theoretically derived formula aimed at maximizing speech intelligibility for any input level of speech while keeping the overall loudness of speech at or below normal loudness. The formula was obtained through an optimization process in which speech intelligibility and loudness were predicted from selected models. Using updated models and applying some revisions to the derivation process, a theoretically derived NAL-NL2 formula was obtained in a similar way. Further adjustments, directed by empirical data collected in studies using NAL-NL1 as the baseline response, have been made to the theoretically derived formula. Specifically, empirical data have demonstrated that (a) female hearing aid users prefer lower overall gain than male users; (b) new hearing aid users with more than a mild hearing loss prefer increasingly less gain with increasing degree of hearing loss than experienced hearing aid users, and require up to 2 years to adapt to gain levels selected by experienced hearing aid users; (c) unilaterally and bilaterally fitted hearing aid users prefer overall gain levels that vary less than estimated by the bilateral correction factor; (d) adults prefer lower overall gain than children; and (e) people with severe/profound hearing loss prefer lower compression ratios than predicted when fitted with fast-acting compression. The literature and data leading to these conclusions are summarized and discussed in this article, and the procedure for implementing the adjustments to the theoretically derived NAL-NL2 formula is described.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

NAL-NL2 Empirical Adjustments

Keidser

Dillon

Carter

et al. 2012

Trends in Amplification

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three studies (Dreschler et al, 2008;Mueller et al, 2008;Zakis et al, 2007) are of Levels 3 and 4 evidence (Cox, 2005;Wong & Hickson, 2012) and preference for trained responses was shown. Improvement in speech perception and satisfaction with trained responses were reported by Mueller et al (2008). Zakis et al (2007) found that, in a laboratory setting, more listeners preferred the trained hearing aid response.…”

Section: Do the Trained Parameters Results In Positive Outcomes Compamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found that 83% of participants were able to discriminate between responses that deviate somewhat from the baseline response, but only 25% of participants reliably preferred some responses over others. In a field trial, Mueller et al (2008) also found that hearing aid users were able to train their hearing aids to preferred settings to improve speech perception as well as satisfaction with aided loudness. In another take-home trial, Zakis et al (2007) found that users were able to manipulate a portable hearing aid prototype to alter compression threshold (CT), gain below CT, compression ratio (CR), and noise suppression responses for each of the three channels.…”

Section: Could Hearing Aid Users Manage Training and Reliably Select mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…While Zakis et al (2007) reported on adjustment of hearing aids according to prescribed real-ear insertion gains (REIGs) prior to training, the majority of the studies did not report how well the REIGs match the targets and the outcomes with these initial settings. In the Mueller et al (2008) study, participants did not start from prescribed REIGs, but from responses that provided 6 dB more or less overall gain than prescribed.…”

Section: Could Hearing Aid Users Manage Training and Reliably Select mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conclusion: Overall, there is evidence that users are able to discriminate between various responses and manipulate up to four parameters (Dreschler et al, 2008) to train the hearing aids to preferred settings and that hearing aid users would prefer trained responses to untrained responses (Dreschler et al, 2008;Keidser, Dillon, et al, 2008;Mueller et al, 2008;Zakis et al, 2007). These are Level 3 and Level 4 evidence, resulting in an overall Grade "B" recommendation (Wong & Hickson, 2012).…”

Section: How Well Does a Hearing Aid Algorithm Converge To The Users'mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evidence on Self-Fitting Hearing Aids

Wong

2011

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research on self-fitting hearing aids is reviewed using evidence-based principles. The evaluation begins with a definition of the research questions followed by a detailed search of the literature and then a review of the relevant studies. Four features of self-fitting hearing aids are reviewed: in-situ threshold measurement, whether an initial fitting prescribed using standard prescription formulae will approximate user preferences, outcomes with training of hearing aids for preferred responses, and assembly and use of the aids. There is at least good quality evidence suggesting that in-situ thresholds can be reliably obtained, that prescribed initial fittings approximate preferred responses, and that users are able to train the hearing aids and would prefer the trained responses. However, evidence on other outcomes and the ability of users to assemble and use such instruments is limited. Gaps in research with self-fitting hearing aids are identified.

show abstract

A Contemporary Review of Hearing Aids

Palmer

2009

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A contemporary review of hearing aids is provided with a focus on current styles of amplification devices, the goals of a hearing aid fitting and the signal processing schemes that allow the clinician to meet these goals, and the need to couple outside devices to hearing aids. A variety of new features available on hearing aids that improve the listener's experience with amplification are described. Some future challenges in hearing aid design and hearing evaluation are presented.

show abstract

Using Trainable Hearing Aids to Examine Real-World Preferred Gain

Abstract: When trainable hearing aids are used, the initial programmed gain of hearing instruments can influence preferred gain in the real world.

Cited by 36 publications

References 25 publications

NAL-NL2 Empirical Adjustments

NAL-NL2 Empirical Adjustments

Evidence on Self-Fitting Hearing Aids

A Contemporary Review of Hearing Aids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About