Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users

We assessed whether gain requirements differ for experienced users and new users when fitted with multi-band compression hearing aids. Three procedures for initial fitting were used: the Cambridge method for loudness equalization (CAMEQ), the Cambridge method for loudness restoration (CAMREST), and the desired sensation level input/output (DSL[i/o]) method. Twenty experienced hearing aid users and 20 new users with mild-to-severe sensorineural loss were fitted with Danalogic 163D digital hearing aids, using each procedure in turn in a counter-balanced order. The new users were given a pre-fitting with slightly reduced gains prior to the ‘formal’ fitting. Immediately after formal fitting with a given procedure, and 1 week after fitting, the gains were adjusted by the minimum amount necessary to achieve acceptable fittings. The amount of adjustment required provided the main measure of the adequacy of the initial fitting. On average, new users required decreases in gain for all procedures, the decreases being larger for DSL[i/o] than for CAMEQ or CAMREST. For experienced users, gain adjustments were small for CAMEQ and CAMREST, but were larger and mostly negative for DSL[i/o]. After these gain adjustments, users wore the aids for at least 3 weeks before filling out the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire and taking part in laboratory measurements of the speech reception threshold (SRT) for sentences in quiet and in steady and fluctuating background noise at levels of 60 and 75dBSPL. The scores on the APHAB test and the SRTs did not differ significantly for the three procedures. We conclude that the CAMEQ and CAMREST procedures provide more appropriate initial fittings than DSL[i/o]. For inexperienced users, gains typically need to be reduced by about 3 dB relative to those prescribed by CAMEQ or CAMREST, although the amount of reduction may depend on hearing loss. An analysis of gain adjustments as a function of order of testing provided some evidence for increased tolerance to high-frequency amplification with increasing experience during the 4-month course of the trial, but this effect did not differ for the experienced and new users. Sumario Evaluamos si existen diferencias en los requerimientos de ganancia entre usuarios inexpertos o experimentados, al adaptarles auxiliares auditivos (AA) de compresión multibanda. Se usaron tres procedimientos para adaptación inicial: los métodos Cambridge para ecualización (CAMEQ) y restauración (CAMREST) de la intensidad subjetiva y el de ingreso/egreso para nivel de sensación deseada (DSL[i/o] ). Se adaptaron AA digitales Danalogic 163D a veinte usuarios experimentados y a 20 nuevos, con pérdidas neurosensoriales medias a severas, usando balanceadamente los tres procedimientos. Los nuevos usuarios fueron pre-adaptados con ganancias ligeramente reducidas, antes de la adaptación “formal”. Inmediatamente después de ésta y una semana después, con cada uno de los procedimientos de adaptación, se ajustaron las ganancias con el mínimo necesario para lograr adaptaciones aceptables. El monto del ajuste fue la principal medición para basar la adaptación inicial. En promedio, los nuevos usuarios requirieron disminución de la ganancia con todos los métodos, siendo mayor con DSL[i/o] que con CAMEQ o CAMREST. Para los experimentados, los ajustes de ganancia fueron menores con CAMEQ y CAMREST, pero más amplios y en su mayoría negativos para DSL[i/o]. Después de estos ajustes de ganancia los AA fueron usados no menos de 3 semanas, antes de llenar el Perfil Abreviado de Beneficio de AA APHAB) y de tomar parte en mediciones de laboratorio del umbral de recepción del lenguaje (SRT) con palabras, sin y con ruido de fondo fijo o fluctuante, en niveles de 60 y 75 dB SPL. Las puntuaciones del APHAB y del SRT no variaron significativamente con los tres métodos. Concluimos que el CAMEQ y el CAMREST permiten una adaptación inicial más apropiada que el DSL[i/o]. En usuarios inexpertos, fue típicamente necesario reducir la ganancia en cerca de 3 dB cuando la prescripción se hizo con CAMEQ o CAMREST, aunque el monto de la reducción puede depender de la pérdida auditiva. Un análisis de los ajustes de ganancia como función del orden de las pruebas, mostró evidencias de mayor tolerancia a la amplificación en frecuencias agudas conforme aumentó la experiencia en los cuatro meses del protocolo, pero este efecto no varió entre usuarios experimentados o inexpertos.

[1]  Mark B. Gardner,et al.  The Dependence of Hearing Impairment on Sound Intensity , 1937 .

[2]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[3]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. II. Experienced users, fitted unilaterally , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[4]  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.

[5]  B. Moore An introduction to the psychology of hearing, 3rd ed. , 1989 .

[6]  B. Moore,et al.  A Test for the Diagnosis of Dead Regions in the Cochlea , 2000, British journal of audiology.

[7]  B C Moore,et al.  Further evaluation of a model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Brian R Glasberg,et al.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data , 1990, Hearing Research.

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

[10]  B C Moore Parallels between frequency selectivity measured psychophysically and in cochlear mechanics. , 1986, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[11]  E. Owens,et al.  An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing , 1997 .

[12]  B. Lindblom,et al.  Modeling the judgment of vowel quality differences. , 1981, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Larry E Humes,et al.  Changes in hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[14]  E Villchur,et al.  Signal processing to improve speech intelligibility in perceptive deafness. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  B C Moore,et al.  Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  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.

[17]  A N Rasmussen,et al.  Loudness perception is influenced by long-term hearing aid use. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[18]  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.

[19]  B C Moore,et al.  Use of a loudness model for hearing-aid fitting. I. Linear hearing aids. , 1998, British journal of audiology.

[20]  C W Turner,et al.  The Time Course of Hearing Aid Benefit , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[21]  F K Kuk,et al.  Effect of hearing aid experience on preferred insertion gain selection. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[22]  A. Macleod,et al.  A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[23]  B. Moore,et al.  Benefits of linear amplification and multichannel compression for speech comprehension in backgrounds with spectral and temporal dips. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Stig Arlinger,et al.  Fitting hearing aids to first-time users , 2000, Scandinavian audiology.

[25]  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.

[26]  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.

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

[28]  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.

[29]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Using Loudness Data for Hearing Aid Selection: The IHAFF Approach , 1995 .