Is there evidence for the added value and correct use of manual and automatically switching multimemory hearing devices? A scoping review

Abstract Objectives: To review literature on the use of manual and automatically switching multimemory devices by hearing aid and CI recipients, and to investigate if recipients appreciate and adequately use the ability to switch between programmes in various listening environments. Design: Literature was searched using PubMed, Embase and ISI/Web of Science. Additional studies were identified by screening reference and citation lists, and by contacting experts. Study sample: The search yielded 1109 records that were screened on title and abstract. This resulted in the full-text assessment of 37 articles. Results: Sixteen articles reported on the use of multiple programmes for various listening environments, three articles reported on the use of an automatic switching mode. All studies reported on hearing aid recipients only, no study with CI recipients fulfilled the selection criteria. Conclusions: Despite the high number of manual and automatically switching multimemory devices sold each year, there are remarkably few studies about the use of multiple programmes or automatic switching modes for various listening environments. No studies were found that examined the accuracy of the use of programmes for specific listening environments. An automatic switching device might be a solution if recipients are not able, or willing, to switch manually between programmes.

[1]  Gitte Keidser,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Australian Hearing's Guidelines for Fitting Multiple Memory Hearing Aids , 2005 .

[2]  Multiple memory hearing aid. Consistency of program-usage in real-world listening situations. , 1997, Scandinavian audiology.

[3]  Shilpi Banerjee Hearing aids in the real world: use of multimemory and volume controls. , 2011, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  G. Keidser,et al.  The use of different frequency response characteristics in everyday environments , 1997 .

[5]  Maria Ioannou,et al.  Appraising an automatically switching directional system in the real world , 2004 .

[6]  Erin C. Schafer,et al.  Benefits of Adaptive Signal Processing in a Commercially Available Cochlear Implant Sound Processor , 2015, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[7]  P G Stelmachowicz,et al.  Preferred hearing-aid frequency responses in simulated listening environments. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  S Mangold,et al.  Clinical trials with a programmable hearing aid set for various listening environments. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[9]  D. Parker,et al.  Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews , 2015, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[10]  G Keidser The Relationship Between Listening Conditions and Alternative Amplification Schemes for Multiple Memory Hearing Aids , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[11]  F. Vanpoucke,et al.  Auditory Environment Across the Life Span of Cochlear Implant Users: Insights From Data Logging. , 2017, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  J van den Heuvel,et al.  Evaluation of fitting rules with a programmable hearing aid. , 1997, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[13]  Stefan J. Mauger,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Nucleus® 6 cochlear implant system: Performance improvements with SmartSound iQ , 2014, International journal of audiology.

[14]  H Gustav Mueller,et al.  Evaluation of a second-order directional microphone hearing aid: II. Self-report outcomes. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[15]  Ruth A Bentler,et al.  Impact of Digital Labeling on Outcome Measures , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[16]  R A Bentler,et al.  Comparison of two digitally programmable hearing aids. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[17]  Increasing hearing aid adoption through multiple environmental listening utility , 2007 .

[18]  F. Kuk Evaluation of the efficacy of a multimemory hearing aid. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[19]  D. Gould,et al.  What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. , 2009, International journal of nursing studies.

[20]  Mary T Cord,et al.  Predicting hearing aid microphone preference in everyday listening. , 2004, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

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

[22]  H. Dillon,et al.  Guidelines for fitting multiple memory hearing aids. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[23]  J L Punch,et al.  Aided Listener Preferences in Laboratory Versus Real‐World Environments , 1994, Ear and hearing.

[24]  H. Arksey,et al.  Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework , 2005 .

[25]  Birgitta Gabriel Study measures user benefit of two modern hearing aid features , 2002 .

[26]  Paula P. Henry,et al.  Full Time Directional versus User Selectable Microphone Modes in Hearing Aids , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[27]  Mary T Cord,et al.  Performance of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday life. , 2002, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[28]  S Gatehouse,et al.  The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Fan-Gang Zeng Do or Die for Hearing Aid Industry , 2015 .