Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Ching TY, Quar TK, Johnson EE, Newall P, Sharma M
    J Am Acad Audiol, 2015 Mar;26(3):260-74.
    PMID: 25751694 DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.26.3.6
    BACKGROUND: An important goal of providing amplification to children with hearing loss is to ensure that hearing aids are adjusted to match targets of prescriptive procedures as closely as possible. The Desired Sensation Level (DSL) v5 and the National Acoustic Laboratories' prescription for nonlinear hearing aids, version 1 (NAL-NL1) procedures are widely used in fitting hearing aids to children. Little is known about hearing aid fitting outcomes for children with severe or profound hearing loss.

    PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prescribed and measured gain of hearing aids fit according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v5 procedure for children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss; and to examine the impact of choice of prescription on predicted speech intelligibility and loudness.

    RESEARCH DESIGN: Participants were fit with Phonak Naida V SP hearing aids according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures. The Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) and estimated loudness were calculated using published models.

    STUDY SAMPLE: The sample consisted of 16 children (30 ears) aged between 7 and 17 yr old.

    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The measured hearing aid gains were compared with the prescribed gains at 50 (low), 65 (medium), and 80 dB SPL (high) input levels. The goodness of fit-to-targets was quantified by calculating the average root-mean-square (RMS) error of the measured gain compared with prescriptive gain targets for 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. The significance of difference between prescriptions for hearing aid gains, SII, and loudness was examined by performing analyses of variance. Correlation analyses were used to examine the relationship between measures.

    RESULTS: The DSL v5 prescribed significantly higher overall gain than the NAL-NL1 procedure for the same audiograms. For low and medium input levels, the hearing aids of all children fit with NAL-NL1 were within 5 dB RMS of prescribed targets, but 33% (10 ears) deviated from the DSL v5 targets by more than 5 dB RMS on average. For high input level, the hearing aid fittings of 60% and 43% of ears deviated by more than 5 dB RMS from targets of NAL-NL1 and DSL v5, respectively. Greater deviations from targets were associated with more severe hearing loss. On average, the SII was higher for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1 at low input level. No significant difference in SII was found between prescriptions at medium or high input level, despite greater loudness for DSL v5 than for NAL-NL1.

    CONCLUSIONS: Although targets between 0.25 and 2 kHz were well matched for both prescriptions in commercial hearing aids, gain targets at 4 kHz were matched for NAL-NL1 only. Although the two prescriptions differ markedly in estimated loudness, they resulted in comparable predicted speech intelligibility for medium and high input levels.

  2. Umat C, McDermott HJ, McKay CM
    J Am Acad Audiol, 2006 12 13;17(10):733-46.
    PMID: 17153721
    This study investigated the effect of intensity on pitch in electric hearing and its relationship to the speech perception ability of cochlear implantees. Subjects were 13 adult users of the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant system, using either the Spectra22 or ESPrit22 speech processor and the SPEAK speech processing strategy. A multidimensional scaling technique was employed. Speech perception was measured using sentences and vowels. All measurements were performed in a soundfield condition, and subjects wore their own speech processors with their normally used settings. Results showed a significant correlation between the degree of deviation of the subjects' stimulus spaces from the "ideal" space and subjects' performance with the sentences, but not with the vowels. A significant correlation was found between subjects' response variability in performing the multidimensional scaling task and their speech perception measures, suggesting that spectral smearing or underlying cognitive abilities might affect implantees' speech perception performance.
  3. Quar TK, Umat C, Chew YY
    J Am Acad Audiol, 2019 05;30(5):346-356.
    PMID: 30461383 DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16150
    BACKGROUND: The use of probe microphone measures in hearing aid verification is often neglected or not fully used by practitioners. Some practitioners rely on simulated gain and output provided by manufacturer's fitting software to verify hearing aids.

    PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of manufacturer's prefit procedure in matching the prescribed real-ear targets. It also aims to study its correlated impact on the predicted speech perception in children with severe and profound hearing loss.

    RESEARCH DESIGN: This cross-sectional experiment was carried out by measuring the output of hearing aids based on prefit versus real-ear at low-, moderate-, and high-input levels. The predicted speech perception for different hearing aid fittings was determined based on the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII).

    STUDY SAMPLE: Sixteen children (28 ears) aged between 4 and 7 yr, with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss took part in the study.

    METHOD: Two different types of hearing aids (Phonak and Unitron) were programmed based on their respective manufacturers' Desired Sensation Levels (DSL) v5 Child procedure. The hearing aids were then verified using coupler-based measurements and individual real-ear-to-coupler differences. The prefit outputs were compared with the DSL v5 Child-prescribed outputs at low-, moderate-, and high-input levels. The hearing aids were then adjusted to closely match the prescribed output. The SIIs were calculated for the fittings before and after adjustment.

    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Sixty four percent of fittings that were based on the prefit procedure achieved the optimal fit-to-targets, with less than 5-dB RMS deviations from the DSL v5 Child targets. After adjusting the hearing aids to attempt to meet the DSL v5 Child targets, 75% of the ears tested achieved the optimal fit-to-targets. On average, hearing aid outputs generated by the manufacturer's prefit procedure had good and reasonable agreement with the DSL v5 Child-prescribed outputs at low- and mid-frequencies. Nonetheless, at 4000 Hz, the hearing aid output mostly fell below the DSL v5 Child-prescribed outputs. This was still the case even after the hearing aid was adjusted to attempt to match with the targets. At low input level, some prefit outputs were found to be higher than the prescribed outputs. The deviations of prefit outputs from the prescribed outputs were dependent on the type of hearing aid and input levels. There was no significant difference between the SII calculated for fittings based on the prefit and adjusted fit.

    CONCLUSIONS: Prefit procedure tends to produce outputs that were below the DSL v5 Child-prescribed outputs, with the largest mean difference at 4000 Hz. Even though the hearing aid gains were adjusted to attempt to match with the targets, the outputs were still below the targets. The limitations of hearing aids to match the DSL v5 Child targets at high-frequency region have resulted in no improvement in the children's predicted speech perception.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links