Comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit
Sreena Ediyarath Narayanan; Puttabasappa Manjula
Abstract
Purpose: The initial-fit provided by the hearing aid manufacturer’s software is generally a display of measurement done in the ear simulators. The need for verification of hearing aid output and gain in the real ear using probe-microphone measurement to match the prescriptive target is highlighted. The objective of the study was to evaluate the difference in real-ear aided response (REAR), real-ear insertion gain (REIG), aided thresholds, articulation index (AI) and word recognition score (WRS) in quiet, with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and NAL-NL1 optimized-fit using the probe-microphone technique. Methods: In a repeated measure experimental design, 11 participants with a mean age of 41.09 (SD=±9.95) years having moderate and moderately-severe sensorineural hearing loss were tested monaurally in two aided conditions, with a 16-channel hearing aid programmed for manufacturer’s NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit to NAL-NL1 using probemicrophone verification. The REAR, REIG, aided threshold, articulation index and word recognition scores in quiet were obtained for both aided conditions. Results: The REAR, REIG, aided threshold, AI and WRS in quiet were significantly better with the NAL-NL1 optimized-fit compared to manufacturer’s NAL-NL1 first-fit. Conclusion: The optimized-fit yields better audibility and improved word recognition in quiet. This supports best practice guidelines of many professional organizations regarding the use of probe-microphone measurement as the “Gold standard” for verification of hearing aid fitting, thereby providing better satisfaction and quality of life to hearing aid users.
Keywords
Referências
1) Valente M, Van Vliet D. The Independent Hearing Aid Fitting Forum (IHAFF) Protocol. Trends Amplif. 1997;2(1):6-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/108471389700200102
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/108471389700200102
2) ISA: International Society of Audiology. Good practice guidance for adult hearing aid fittings and services. 2005 [cited 2020 March 20]. Available from: http://www.isa-audiology.org/members/pdf/gpg-adaf.pdf
» http://www.isa-audiology.org/members/pdf/gpg-adaf.pdf
3) AAA: American Academy of Audiology. Guidelines for the audiologic management of adult hearing impairment [Internet]. 2006. [cited 2020 March 20]. Available from: http://audiology.org/resources/documentlibrary/documents/ haguidelines.pdf
» http://audiology.org/resources/documentlibrary/documents/
4) ASHA Ad Hoc Committee on Hearing Aid Selection and Fitting. Guidelines for hearing aid fitting for adults. Am J Audiol. 1998;7(1):5-13. https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889.0701.05 https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889.0701.05
» https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889.0701.05
» https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889.0701.05
5) Dillon H, Keidser G. Is probe-mic measurement of HA gain-frequency response best practice? Hear J. 2003;56(10):28-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000292916.91825.6a
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000292916.91825.6a
6) Mueller HG, Picou E. Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hear J. 2010;63(5):27-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000373447.52956.25
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000373447.52956.25
7) Manjula P. Verification of hearing aid fitting for audibility and speech recognition through behavioural and objective methods. In: Hemanth N, Nambi PMA, editors. Clinical aspects in hearing aids. Mysore, India: Indian Speech and Hearing Association; 2020. p. 91-8.
8) Bentler R. Advanced hearing aid features: do they work? In: Proceedings of the Convention of the American Speech Language Hearing Association; 2004; Washington, D.C. Rockville: ASHA; 2004.
9) Bretz K. A comparison of three hearing aid manufacturers’ recommended first-fit to two generic prescriptive targets with the pediatric population [thesis]. St. Louis: Washington University School of Medicine; 2006.
10) Hawkins DB, Cook JA. Hearing aid software predictive gain values: how accurate are they? Hear J. 2003;56(7):26-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000292552.60032.8b
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000292552.60032.8b
11) Aarts NL, Caffee CS. Manufacturer predicted and measured REAR values in adult hearing aid fitting: accuracy and clinical usefulness. Int J Audiol. 2005;44(5):293-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020500057830 PMid:16028792.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992020500057830
12) Aazh H, Moore BCJ. The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007;18(8):653-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.8.3 PMid:18326152.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.8.3
13) Aazh H, Moore BCJ, Prasher D. The accuracy of matching target insertion gains with open-fit hearing aids. Am J Audiol. 2012;21(2):175-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2012/11-0008) PMid:22846638.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2012/11-0008)
14) Leavitt R, Flexer C. The importance of audibility in successful amplification of hearing loss. Hear Rev. 2012;19:20-3.
15) Sanders J, Stoody T, Weber J, Mueller HG. Manufacturers’ NAL- NL2 fittings fail real-ear verification. Hear Rev. 2015;21:24-30.
16) Abrams HB, Chisolm TH, Mcmanus M, Mcardle R. Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012;23(10):768-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.23.10.3 PMid:23169194.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.23.10.3
17) Valente M, Oeding K, Brockmeyer A, Smith S, Kallogjeri D. Differences in word and phoneme recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and subjective outcomes between manufacturer first-fit and hearing aids programmed to NAL-NL2 using real-ear measures. J Am Acad Audiol. 2018;29(8):706-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.17005 PMid:30222541.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.17005
18) Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiol Res. 2011;1(1):e24. http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2011.e24 PMid:26557309.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2011.e24
19) American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.1-1999. Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. New York: Acoustical Society of America; 2018
20) Carhart R, Jerger J. Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord. 1959;24(4):330-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/jshd.2404.330
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/jshd.2404.330
21) Rajashekar B. The development and standardization of a picture SRT test for adults and children in Kannada [dissertation]. Mysore, India: University of Mysore; 1976.
22) Yathiraj A, Vijayalakshmi CS. Phonemically-balanced Kannada word identification test for adults. Mysore, India: AIISH. 2005.
23) Ricketts TA, Bentler R, Mueller HG. Behaviroal assessments during clinical fittings. In: Ricketts TA, Bentler R, Mueller HG, editors. Essentials of modern hearing aids: selection, fitting, verification. San Diego: CA Plural Publishing; 2019. p. 559-602.
24) McCreery R. Building blocks: the trouble with functional gain in verifying pediatric hearing aids. Hear J. 2013;66(3):14-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000427527.55840.9b
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000427527.55840.9b
25) Amlani AM, Punch JL, Ching TYC. Methods and application of the audibility index in hearing aid selection and fitting. Trends Amplif. 2002;6(3):81-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/108471380200600302 PMid:25425917.
» http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/108471380200600302
26) American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.5-1969. Methods for the Calculation of the Articulation Index. New York: Acoustical Society of America; 1969.
27) American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.5-1997. Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York: Acoustical Society of America; 1997.
28) Humes LE. Understanding the speech-understanding problems of the hearing impaired. J Am Acad Audiol. 1991;2(2):59-69. PMid:1768875.
29) Amlani AM, Pumford J, Gessling E. Improving patient perception of clinical services through real-ear measurements. Hear Rev. 2016;23:12-2.
30) Amlani AM, Pumford J, Gessling E. Real-ear measurement and its impact on aided audibility and patient loyalty. Hear Rev. 2017;24:12-21.
Submetido em:
29/09/2020
Aceito em:
04/03/2021
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email