Ruth English1,2, Kerrie Plant1,2, Michael Maciejczyk1, Robert Cowan1,3,4. 1. a The HEARing CRC , Melbourne , Australia . 2. b Cochlear Limited , Melbourne , Australia . 3. c Department of Audiology, Hearing and Speech Sciences, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne , Australia , and. 4. d Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University , Sydney , Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: For a group of cochlear implant recipients, who use hearing aids in the contralateral ear, the benefit of NAL-NL2 relative to a recipients' own prescription was assessed. Whether there was a preferred frequency response and/or gain deviation from NAL-NL2 was then investigated. DESIGN: Speech recognition and self-reported ratings of benefit were examined for the recipients' own prescription compared to the NAL-NL2 prescription, in the bimodal and hearing-aid alone conditions. Paired-comparison of hearing-aid frequency response was conducted with default NAL-NL2 and two variants, a low frequency boost or cut. Using a loudness balancing procedure, the hearing-aid gain required to achieve equal loudness between the devices was measured. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixteen adults with post-lingual hearing loss. RESULTS: A 22% increase in group median word score in quiet with use of NAL-NL2 in the hearing-aid alone condition. In the bimodal condition there was no improvement with NAL-NL2. Default NAL-NL2 frequency response was preferred by 67% of participants. For 56% of participants, the preferred gain to achieve loudness balance across bimodal devices was within 5-dB of prescribed values. CONCLUSIONS: The NAL-NL2 prescription provides a high level of clinical performance, and an acceptable frequency response and gain for most participants.
OBJECTIVE: For a group of cochlear implant recipients, who use hearing aids in the contralateral ear, the benefit of NAL-NL2 relative to a recipients' own prescription was assessed. Whether there was a preferred frequency response and/or gain deviation from NAL-NL2 was then investigated. DESIGN: Speech recognition and self-reported ratings of benefit were examined for the recipients' own prescription compared to the NAL-NL2 prescription, in the bimodal and hearing-aid alone conditions. Paired-comparison of hearing-aid frequency response was conducted with default NAL-NL2 and two variants, a low frequency boost or cut. Using a loudness balancing procedure, the hearing-aid gain required to achieve equal loudness between the devices was measured. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixteen adults with post-lingual hearing loss. RESULTS: A 22% increase in group median word score in quiet with use of NAL-NL2 in the hearing-aid alone condition. In the bimodal condition there was no improvement with NAL-NL2. Default NAL-NL2 frequency response was preferred by 67% of participants. For 56% of participants, the preferred gain to achieve loudness balance across bimodal devices was within 5-dB of prescribed values. CONCLUSIONS: The NAL-NL2 prescription provides a high level of clinical performance, and an acceptable frequency response and gain for most participants.
Authors: Arlene C Neuman; Susan B Waltzman; William H Shapiro; Jonathan D Neukam; Annette M Zeman; Mario A Svirsky Journal: Trends Hear Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.293