Literature DB >> 15250124

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

Josephine Marriage1, Brian C J Moore, José I Alcántara.   

Abstract

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 75 dBSPL. 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 3dB 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15250124     DOI: 10.1080/14992020400050028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Audiol        ISSN: 1499-2027            Impact factor:   2.117


  9 in total

1.  Audiologist-driven versus patient-driven fine tuning of hearing instruments.

Authors:  Monique Boymans; Wouter A Dreschler
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2011-12-04

Review 2.  Evidence on self-fitting hearing aids.

Authors:  Lena L N Wong
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2012-04-23

Review 3.  Comparative studies on hearing aid selection and fitting procedures: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Mick Metselaar; Bert Maat; Hans Verschuure; Wouter A Dreschler; Louw Feenstra
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2007-10-23       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Effects of Amplification and Hearing Aid Experience on the Contribution of Specific Frequency Bands to Loudness.

Authors:  Katie M Thrailkill; Marc A Brennan; Walt Jesteadt
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 5.  Effects of bandwidth, compression speed, and gain at high frequencies on preferences for amplified music.

Authors:  Brian C J Moore
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2012-11-19

6.  Self-Adjusted Amplification Parameters Produce Large Between-Subject Variability and Preserve Speech Intelligibility.

Authors:  Peggy B Nelson; Trevor T Perry; Melanie Gregan; Dianne VanTasell
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

7.  Perceptual Effects of Adjusting Hearing-Aid Gain by Means of a Machine-Learning Approach Based on Individual User Preference.

Authors:  Niels Søgaard Jensen; Ole Hau; Jens Brehm Bagger Nielsen; Thor Bundgaard Nielsen; Søren Vase Legarth
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

8.  Clinical Trials and Outcome Measures in Adults With Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Kevin J Munro; William M Whitmer; Antje Heinrich
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-11-05

9.  Discrimination of Gain Increments in Speech-Shaped Noises.

Authors:  Benjamin Caswell-Midwinter; William M Whitmer
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.