- Original article
- Open access
- Published:
Comparison of three fitting rationales in adults in an artificial intelligence parallel processing hearing aid
The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology volume 29, pages 104–117 (2013)
En
Abstract
Introduction
Hearing rehabilitation using nonlinear hearing aid (HA) fitting formulae provides hearing-impaired individuals with the audibility, comfort, and speech intelligibility for a better life.
Objective
To compare three nonlinear HA fitting formulae in adults in a Channel Free artificial intelligence parallel processing HA.
Materials and methods
The study included 19 adults with bilateral moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss, monaurally fitted with nonlinear HA. Comparisons were made on the basis of aided speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise, aided sound field thresholds, and functional performance in real life using APHAB, COSI, and GHABP questionnaires.
Results
The three formulae have significantly improved speech discrimination in adults, with no significant difference among the formulae for speech intelligibility in quiet or in noise, with no sex or HA experience differences. The three formulae have significantly improved functional performance in real-life speech communication, with the NAL-NL1-based formula showing the greatest degree of benefit and improvement in listening needs, followed by NAL-NL1 and then DSL [I/O]. However, amplification with the three formulae increased aversiveness to environmental sounds. Participants reported significant benefits using NAL and NAL-NL1-based formulae. Experienced HA users, using the NAL-NL1-based formula, showed significantly less difficulty in listening quality in large spaces and greater capacity to recognize speech within competitive noise and better tolerance to environmental sounds than nonexperienced users. The SPIN test correlated well with real-life speech communication.
Conclusion
The three fitting rationales have equally improved intelligibility, with variable degrees of improvement in real-life speech communication with preferences for NAL-NL1 and the manufacture-specific NAL-NL1-based formula.
References
Schum DJ The core features of modern HAs. Available at: http://www.oticonusa.com/Oticon/Professional_Resources/Library/News_From_Oticon_/september_2005.html [Accessed 8 August 2011].
Haskell G, Noffsinger D, Larson V, Williams D, Dobie R, Rogers J. Subjective measurement of HAs benefit in the NIDCD/VA Clinical Trial. Ear Hear. 2002; 23: 301–307.
Noffsinger D, Haskell GB, Larson VD, Williams DW, Wilson E, Plunkett S, Kenworthy D. Quality rating test of hearing aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA clinical trial. Ear Hear. 2002; 23: 291–300.
Boothroyd A, Springer N, Smith L, Schulman J. Amplitude compression and profound hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res. 1988; 31: 362–376.
Kuk F. Recent approaches to fitting non linear HAs. In: Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H, Roeser R, et al., editors. Audiology treatment. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 2000. pp. 261–289.
Schum DJ, Beck DL Modern applications of multi-channel non-linear amplifications. News from Oticon 2005; 1–5.
Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995; 97: 1854–1864.
Dillon H. NAL-NL 1: a new procedure for fitting non-linear HAs. Hear J. 1999; 52: 10–16.
Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1995; 16: 176–186.
Surr RK, Cord MT, Walden BE. Long-term versus short-term hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol. 1998; 9: 165–171.
Valente M, Potts L, Valente M. Clinical procedures to improve user satisfaction with HAs. In practical hearing aid selection mid fining (monograph 001, 75–93). Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs; 1997.
Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 1997; 8: 27–43.
Gatehouse S. The Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of a client-centred outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999; 10: 80–103.
Weinstein BE, Spitzer JB, Ventry IM. Test-retest reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly. Ear Hear. 1986; 7: 295–299.
American National Standard Institute (ANSI). Specification for instruments to measure aural acoustic impedance and admittance (aural acoustic immittance). S3.39. New York: ANSI; 1987.
Soliman SM, Fathalla A, Shehata M. Development of Arabic staggered spondee words (SSW) test: in proceedings of 8th Ain Shams Medical Congress, Cairo, Egypt. 1985; 2:1220–1246.
Soliman SM. Speech discrimination audiometry using Arabic phonetically-balanced words. Ain Shams Med J. 1976; 27: 27–30.
Dillon H. Selecting hearing aid issues for children. Chapter 15. In: Dillon H, editor. Hearing Aids. 1st ed. New York: Thieme Publishing; 2001. pp. 404–433.
Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L, Moodie S, Bagatto M, Laurnagaray D, et al. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif. 2005; 9: 159–197.
Macrae J, Frazer G. An investigation of variables affecting aided thresholds. Aust J Audiol. 1980; 2: 56–62.
Polonenko MJ, Scollie SD, Moodie S, Seewald RC, Laurnagaray D, Shantz J, Richards A. Fit to targets, preferred listening levels, and self-reported outcomes for the DSL v5.0a hearing aid prescription for adults. Int J Audiol. 2010;49:550–560.
Scollie S DSL version v 5.0: description and early results in children. Audiology Online. Available at: https://www.audiologyonline.com [Accessed 5 July 2011].
Dillon H. What’s new from NAL in hearing aid prescriptions? Hear J. 2006; 59: 10–16.
Keidser G, Dillon H. What’s new in prescriptive fittings down under? In: Seewald R, editor. Hearing care for adults. Chapter 10. Stafa, Switzerland: Phonak AG; 2007. pp. 133–142.
Souza P Translating compression research into clinical decisions. Audiology Online. Available at: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/translating-compression-research-into-clinical-948 [Accessed 30 November 2011].
Kuk F, Ludvigsen C. Reconsidering the concept of the aided threshold for nonlinear hearing aids. Trends Amplif. 2003; 7: 77–97.
Kuk F, Keenan D, Ludvigsen C. Is real-world directional benefit predictable? Hear Rev. 2004; 11: 18–25.
Byrne D, Dillon H, Ching T, Katsch R, Keidser G. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001; 12: 37–51.
Venema T The NAL-NL1 fitting method. Available at: http://www.audiologyonline.com [Accessed 8 August 2011].
Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S 2011 The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Research, North America Available at: http://www.audiologyresearch.org [Accessed 1 March 2011].
Boike KT, Souza PE. Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000; 43: 456–468.
Hohmann V, Kollmeier B. The effect of multichannel dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995; 97: 1191–1195.
Hornsby BWY, Ricketts TA. The effects of compression ratio, signal-to-noise ratio, and level on speech recognition in normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 109: 2964–2973.
Rosengard PS, Payton KL, Braida LD. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005; 48: 702–714.
Verschuure H, Prinsen TT, Dreschler WA. The effects of syllabic compression and frequency shaping on speech intelligibility in hearing impaired people. Ear Hear. 1994; 15: 13–21.
Jenstad LM, Van Tasell DJ, Ewert C. Hearing aid troubleshooting based on patients’ descriptions. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003; 14: 347–360.
Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Hellman S, Levitt H. Effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing aid: paired-comparison judgments of quality. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 96: 1471–1478.
Johnson EE, Dillon H. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011; 22: 441–459.
Reyneke MA. Comparison of two non-linear prescriptive methods used with digital hearing instrument fittings in children [Master’s Dissertation]. University of Pretoria, South Africa. Available at: http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-02112005-091556/; [Accessed 2 February 2012]; 2004.
Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: normative data for the client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and the hearing aid user’s questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol. 1999; 10: 67–79.
Amorim RM, Almeida K. Study of benefit and of acclimatization in recent users of hearing aids. Pro Fono. 2007; 19: 39–48.
Bucuvic EC, Iorio MCM. Benefit and hearing difficulties: a study of new users of hearing aids after two and six months of use. Fono Atual. 2004; 29: 19–29 Quoted from Amorim and Almeida [41].
Johnson JA, Cox RM, Alexander GC. Development of APHAB norms for WDRC hearing aids and comparisons with original norms. Ear Hear. 2010; 31: 47–55.
Convery E, Keidser G, Dillon H. A review and analysis: does amplification experience have an effect on preferred gain over time? Aust N Z J Audiol. 2005; 27: 18–32.
Keidser G, Limareff HS, Simmons S, Gul C, Hayes Z, Sawers C, et al. Clinical evaluation of Australian Hearing’s guidelines for fitting multiple memory hearing aids. Aust N Z J Audiol. 2005; 27: 51–68.
Keidser G, Dillon H, Drylund O, Carter L, Hartley D. Preferred low- and high-frequency compression ratios among hearing aid users with moderately severe to profound hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007; 18: 17–33.
Keidser G, O’Brien A, Carter L, McLelland M, Yeend I. Variation in preferred gain with experience for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol. 2008; 47: 621–635.
Marriage J, Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users. Int J Audiol. 2004; 43: 198–210.
Cox RM, Alexander GC. Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements. Ear Hear. 1992; 13: 131–141.
Horwitz AR, Turner CW. The time course of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1997; 18: 1–11.
Munro KJ, Lutman ME. The effect of speech presentation level on measurement of auditory acclimatization to amplified speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 114: 484–495.
Keidser G, Dillon H, Convery E. The effect of the base line response on self-adjustments of hearing aid gain. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008; 124: 1668–1681.
Smeds K, Keidser G, Zakis J, Dillon H, Leijon A, Grant F, et al. Preferred overall loudness. I: sound field presentation in the laboratory. Int J Audiol. 2006; 45: 2–11.
Smeds K, Keidser G, Zakis J, Dillon H, Leijon A, Grant F, et al. Preferred overall loudness. II: listening through hearing aids in field and laboratory tests. Int J Audiol. 2006; 45: 12–25.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Conflicts of interest
The authors have the following perceived conflict of interest: Hearing aids included in this study were bought from the hearing aid dispenser with a financial donation that was offered by a benefactor who is unrelated to the dispensing company. A single hearing aid was given to each patient (monaural fitting) -due to the limited amount of money donated.
Rights and permissions
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Shabana, M.I., Dabbous, A.O., El-Dessouky, T. et al. Comparison of three fitting rationales in adults in an artificial intelligence parallel processing hearing aid. Egypt J Otolaryngol 29, 104–117 (2013). https://doi.org/10.7123/01.EJO.0000426379.79006.40
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7123/01.EJO.0000426379.79006.40