Clinical Verification of Hearing Aid Performance

The general goal of providing amplification is to improve functional auditory capacity and restore good communication skills. Amplification should restore the audibility of soft sounds, provide improved intelligibility of speech at conversational listening levels, and ensure that intense sounds are not amplified to an uncomfortably loud level. There are several prescription methods that provide frequency-specific target values for soft, conversational, and intense sounds. Despite differences in the target values, no validated prescription method has been clearly shown to be superior to any of the other methods in terms of patient benefit (e.g., greater satisfaction, less residual disability). However, clinical studies have clearly shown that when a well-researched prescriptive approach is used and appropriate gain is delivered across frequencies, speech intelligibility is enhanced, and there is improved patient benefit and satisfaction. There is also irrefutable evidence that the audiologist can improve the match to the prescription target values using a probe microphone placed within the patient’s ear canal. As a result, carefully conducted verification is an essential component of long-term success with amplification. The most recent generation of prescription methods provides a degree of personalization to the target values beyond that associated with hearing threshold levels. However, there is an urgent clinical need to address the wide range of clinical outcomes that occur in hearing aid users with apparently similar characteristics.

[1]  R M Cox,et al.  Evaluation of an in-situ output probe-microphone method for hearing aid fitting verification. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[2]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  A cross-over, double-blind comparison of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[3]  R W Gengel,et al.  A frequency-response procedure for evaluating and selecting hearing aids for severely hearing-impaired children. , 1971, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[4]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[5]  D Byrne,et al.  Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  H Dillon,et al.  The National Acoustic Laboratories' Procedure for Selecting the Saturation Sound Pressure Level of Hearing Aids: Experimental Validation , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[7]  P G Stelmachowicz,et al.  Probe-tube microphone measures of ear-canal sound pressure levels in infants and children. , 1989, Ear and hearing.

[8]  B. Moore,et al.  Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  C. Turner,et al.  Speech audibility for listeners with high-frequency hearing loss. , 1999, American journal of audiology.

[11]  Yu-Hsiang Wu,et al.  Clinical Measures of Hearing Aid Directivity: Assumption, Accuracy, and Reliability , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[12]  D D Dirks,et al.  Basic Acoustic Considerations of Ear Canal: Probe Measurements , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[13]  S Buus,et al.  Frequency selectivity in normally-hearing and hearing-impaired observers. , 1980, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[14]  B C Moore,et al.  Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. I. Experienced users, fitted bilaterally , 2001, British journal of audiology.

[15]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions for children: Paired-comparison intelligibility judgments and functional performance ratings , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[16]  N P Erber Body-baffle and real-ear effects in the selection of hearing aids for deaf children. , 1973, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[17]  H. Gustav Mueller,et al.  Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures , 2010 .

[18]  Sheila Moodie,et al.  The Desired Sensation Level Multistage Input/Output Algorithm , 2005, Trends in amplification.

[19]  B. Moore,et al.  The Effect of Low-Pass Filtering on Identification of Nonsense Syllables in Quiet by School-Age Children With and Without Cochlear Dead Regions , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[20]  P. Newall,et al.  Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[21]  H. Gustav Mueller,et al.  MarkeTrak VIII: The Impact of the Hearing Healthcare Professional on Hearing Aid User Success , 2010 .

[22]  D. Mason,et al.  Comparison of hearing-aid gain using functional, coupler, and probe-tube measurements. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[23]  Gitte Keidser,et al.  NAL-NL2 Empirical Adjustments , 2012, Trends in amplification.

[24]  B C Moore,et al.  Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression. , 1999, British journal of audiology.

[25]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit , 1995 .

[26]  P G Stelmachowicz,et al.  The effect of reference microphone placement on sound pressure levels at an ear level hearing aid microphone. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[27]  Kevin J Munro,et al.  Measuring the Real-Ear to Coupler Difference Transfer Function With an Insert Earphone and a Hearing Instrument: Are They the Same? , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[28]  D Wigney,et al.  Comparison of severely and profoundly hearing-impaired children's amplification preferences with the NAL-RP and the DSL 3.0 prescriptions. , 1997, Scandinavian audiology.

[29]  Mark Smith,et al.  Using probe-microphone measurements to improve the match to target gain and frequency response slope, as a function of earmould style, frequency, and input level , 2016, International journal of audiology.

[30]  H. Dillon,et al.  An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra , 1994 .

[31]  Gitte Keidser,et al.  Variation in preferred gain with experience for hearing-aid users , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[32]  L Magnusson,et al.  Predicted and Measured Speech Recognition Performance in Noise with Linear Amplification , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[33]  R C Seewald,et al.  Selecting Amplification Characteristics for Young Hearing‐Impaired Children , 1985, Ear and hearing.

[34]  D. Byrne,et al.  Selecting the Gain of Hearing Aids for Persons with Sensorineural Hearing Impairments , 1976 .

[35]  K J Munro,et al.  Customized Acoustic Transform Functions and Their Accuracy at Predicting Real‐Ear Hearing Aid Performance , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[36]  Susan Scollie,et al.  Predictive Validity of a Procedure for Pediatric Hearing Instrument Fitting , 1999 .

[37]  Gitte Keidser,et al.  Proprietary fitting algorithms compared with one another and with generic formulas , 2003 .

[39]  Earl E. Johnson,et al.  A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility. , 2011, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[40]  R C Seewald,et al.  Preferred listening levels of children who use hearing aids: comparison to prescriptive targets. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[41]  H. Dillon,et al.  The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) New Procedure for Selecting the Gain and Frequency Response of a Hearing Aid , 1986, Ear and hearing.

[42]  H. Gustav Mueller,et al.  Open‐canal fittings: Ten take‐home tips , 2006 .

[43]  M. Killion,et al.  Twenty years later: A NEW Count-The-Dots method , 2010 .

[44]  Thomas A. Powers,et al.  Algorithm lets users train aid to optimize compression, frequency shape, and gain , 2009 .

[45]  B. Moore Cochlear hearing loss : physiological, psychological and technical issues , 2014 .

[46]  Sheila Moodie,et al.  A comparison of manufacturer-specific prescriptive procedures for infants , 2008 .

[47]  S. Scollie,et al.  The University of Western Ontario Pediatric Audiological Monitoring Protocol (UWO PedAMP) , 2011, Trends in amplification.

[48]  Michael A Stone,et al.  Estimated variability of real-ear insertion response (REIR) due to loudspeaker type and placement , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[49]  Ryan W McCreery,et al.  SHARP Updates Enable Audibility Estimates with Nonlinear Frequency Compression , 2014 .

[50]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Development and analysis of an International Speech Test Signal (ISTS) , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[51]  B. Moore Dead Regions in the Cochlea: Conceptual Foundations, Diagnosis, and Clinical Applications , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[52]  Gitte Keidser,et al.  Real-Life Efficacy and Reliability of Training a Hearing Aid , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[53]  K. Munro,et al.  Comparison of Real-Ear to Coupler Difference Values in the Right and Left Ear of Adults Using Three Earmold Configurations , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[54]  P. Dawes,et al.  Placebo effects in hearing-aid trials are reliable , 2013, International journal of audiology.

[55]  B C Moore,et al.  Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: II. Hearing aids with multi-channel compression. , 1999, British journal of audiology.

[56]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children: Preference in real world use , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[57]  D D Dirks,et al.  Comparison of probe insertion methods on estimates of ear canal SPL. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[58]  Sheila Moodie,et al.  The DSL Method for Pediatric Hearing Instrument Fitting: Historical Perspective and Current Issues , 2005, Trends in amplification.

[59]  M C Killion,et al.  Insertion Gain Repeatability versus Loudspeaker Location: You Want Me to Put My Loudspeaker WHERE? , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[60]  Harvey Dillon,et al.  NAL-NL1: A new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids , 1999 .

[61]  Susan D Scollie,et al.  Real-ear-to-coupler difference predictions as a function of age for two coupling procedures. , 2002, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[62]  B C Moore Use of a Loudness Model for Hearing Aid Fitting. IV. Fitting Hearing Aids with Multi-Channel Compression so as to Restore ‘Normal’ Loudness for Speech at Different Levels , 2000, British journal of audiology.

[63]  H G Mueller Probe Microphone Measurements: 20 Years of Progress , 2001, Trends in amplification.

[64]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[65]  P. Dawes,et al.  The Placebo Effect and the Influence of Participant Expectation on Hearing Aid Trials , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[66]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  The accuracy of matching target insertion gains with open-fit hearing aids. , 2012, American journal of audiology.

[67]  D. Dirks,et al.  Optical method for measurement of ear canal length. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[68]  R C Seewald,et al.  Ear level recordings of the long-term average spectrum of speech. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[69]  T. Ching,et al.  Prescribed real-ear and achieved real-life differences in children's hearing aids adjusted according to the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[70]  A C Neuman,et al.  The Selection and Validation of Output Sound Pressure Level in Multichannel Hearing Aids , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[71]  R C Seewald,et al.  The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[72]  Hawkins Db,et al.  Effect of reference microphone location and loudspeaker azimuth on probe tube microphone measurements. , 1991 .

[73]  T. Ching,et al.  Children's speech perception and loudness ratings when fitted with hearing aids using the DSL v.4.1 and the NAL-NL1 prescriptions , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[74]  G Keidser,et al.  NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[75]  Kevin J Munro,et al.  Is the real-ear to coupler difference independent of the measurement earphone?: Es independiente del auricular de medición, la diferencia entre el oído real y el acoplador? , 2002, International journal of audiology.

[76]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Development of a new method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[77]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Comparison of the CAM2 and NAL-NL2 Hearing Aid Fitting Methods , 2013, Ear and hearing.