Subscribe to RSS
Venting Corrections Improve the Accuracy of Coupler-Based Simulated Real-Ear Verification for Use with Adult Hearing Aid FittingsFunding Ontario Research Fund, RE08-072
Background Hearing aid responses can be verified with the Real-Ear Aided Response (REAR). Procedures for predicting the REAR from coupler-based verification exist, but have not incorporated corrections for venting, limiting their use and validity for vented and open fittings. A commercially available system for including venting effects in simulated real-ear measurement (S-REM) has recently been developed.
Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of a vent-corrected S-REM for predicting the REAR across test levels, for fittings with a wide range of coupling styles including modular domes.
Research Design This was a within-subject comparison study using technical measures. Retrospective file review was used to obtain previously measured REARs from 104 fittings in 52 adults and three hearing aid styles. Prospective data collection was used to re-measure each fitting at three test levels using S-REM with and without venting corrections. Comparison of differences by frequency band was performed to assess the impact of the venting correction.
Results The vent model reduced low-frequency error by up to 11 dB, and the effects were consistent with the expected effects of venting in hearing aid fitting: fittings with more open dome or tip styles had a larger improvement when the vent model was added. A larger sample of fittings was obtained for dome/sleeve couplings than for custom fittings.
Conclusions The vent-corrected S-REM system evaluated in this study provides improved fitting accuracy for dome or sleeve-fitted hearing aids for adults and supports the use of vented S-REM for open fittings. Further studies to examine a representative sample of custom tip or mold fittings, and fittings for children are future directions.
Received 20 Dec 2019 (Protocol 114746).
Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.
Received: 16 September 2021
Accepted: 17 March 2022
Accepted Manuscript online:
24 March 2022
Article published online:
07 November 2022
© 2022. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
- 1 AAA. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Pediatric Amplification (pp. 1–60) [Clinical Practice Guidelines]. 2013 . American Academy of Audiology. Available at: https://www.audiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/PediatricAmplificationGuidelines.pdf
- 2 Valente M, Abrams H, Benson D. et al. Guidelines for the audiologic management of adult hearing impairment. Audiol Today 2006; 18: 32-36
- 3 Almufarrij I, Dillon H, Munro KJ. Does probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improve outcomes in adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Hear 2021; 25: 2331216521999563
- 4 Amlani A, Pumford J, Gessling E. Improving patient perception of clinical services through real-ear measurements. Hear Rev 2016; 23 (12) 12
- 5 Boymans M, Dreschler WA. Audiologist-driven versus patient-driven fine tuning of hearing instruments. Trends Amplif 2012; 16 (01) 49-58
- 6 Ledda KT, Valente M, Oeding K, Kallogjeri D. Difference in speech recognition between a default and programmed telecoil program. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (06) 502-515
- 7 McCreery RW, Walker EA, Spratford M, Kirby BJ, Oleson JJ, Brennan M. Stability of audiometric thresholds for children with hearing aids applying the american academy of audiology pediatric amplification guideline: implications for safety. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (03) 252-263
- 8 Munro KJ, Puri R, Bird J, Smith M. Using probe-microphone measurements to improve the match to target gain and frequency response slope, as a function of earmould style, frequency, and input level. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (04) 215-223
- 9 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 (08) 706-721
- 10 Moodie S, Rall E, Eiten L. et al. Pediatric audiology in North America: current clinical practice and how it relates to the american academy of audiology pediatric amplification guideline. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; b 27 (03) 166-187
- 11 Bagatto M. Providing hearing aids to infants and young children. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (03) 164-165
- 12 Bagatto M, Moodie S, Brown C. et al. Prescribing and verifying hearing aids applying the American Academy of Audiology pediatric amplification guideline: protocols and outcomes from the ontario infant hearing program. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (03) 188-203
- 13 Seewald RC, Moodie KS, Sinclair ST, Scollie SD. Predictive validity of a procedure for pediatric hearing instrument fitting. Am J Audiol 1999; 8 (02) 143-152
- 14 Bagatto M, Moodie S, Scollie S. et al. Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the Desired Sensation Level method. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (04) 199-226
- 15 Moodie S, Pietrobon J, Rall E. et al. Using the real-ear-to-coupler difference within the American Academy of Audiology pediatric amplification guideline: protocols for applying and predicting Earmold RECDs. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; a 27 (03) 264-275
- 16 Folkeard P, Pumford J, Abbasalipour P, Willis N, Scollie S. A comparison of automated real-ear and traditional hearing aid fitting methods—Audioscan. Hear Rev 2018; 25 (11) 28-32
- 17 Munro KJ, Hatton N. Customized acoustic transform functions and their accuracy at predicting real-ear hearing aid performance. Ear Hear 2000; 21 (01) 59-69
- 18 Munro KJ, Millward KE. The influence of RECD transducer when deriving real-ear sound pressure level. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (04) 409-423
- 19 Munro KJ, Toal S. Measuring the real-ear to coupler difference transfer function with an insert earphone and a hearing instrument: are they the same?. Ear Hear 2005; 26 (01) 27-34
- 20 American National Standards Institute, R2018, ANSI_S3.46. Methods of measurement of real-ear performance characteristics of hearing aids. Acoustical Association of America.
- 21 Blau M, Sankowsky T, Stirnemann A, Oberdanner H, Schmitt N. Acoustics of open fittings. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123 (05) 3011-3011
- 22 Carporali S, Cubick J, Catic J, Damsgaard A, Schmidt E. The vent effect in instant ear tips and its impact on the fitting of modern hearing aids. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 7, 205–212
- 23 Kuk F, Keenan D, Lau CC. Comparison of vent effects between a solid earmold and a hollow earmold. J Am Acad Audiol 2009; 20 (08) 480-491
- 24 Zachman TA, Studebaker GA. Investigation of the acoustics of earmold vents. J Acoust Soc Am 1970; 47 (4, 4B): 1107-1115
- 25 Winkler A, Latzel M, Holube I. Open versus closed hearing-aid fittings: a literature review of both fitting approaches. Trends Hear 2016; 20: 233121651663174
- 26 Winther Balling L, Jensen NS, Caporali S, Cubick J, Switalski W. Challenges of instant-fit ear tips: What happens at the eardrum? Hear Rev. 2019; 26 (12) 12-15
- 27 Pumford J, Scollie S, Folkeard P, Pietrobon J, Abbasalipour P. Vent corrections for simulated real-ear measurements of hearing aid fittings in the test box. AudiologyOnline. 2021 . Accessed April 6, 2022 at: https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/audioscan-vent-corrections-27884
- 28 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L. et al. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (04) 159-197
- 29 Scollie SD, Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE, Jenstad LM. Validity and repeatability of level-independent HL to SPL transforms. Ear Hear 1998; 19 (05) 407-413
- 30 Vaisberg JM, Folkeard P, Pumford J, Narten P, Scollie S. Evaluation of the repeatability and accuracy of the wideband real-ear-to-coupler difference. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (06) 520-532
- 31 Hoover BM, Stelmachowicz PG, Lewis DE. Effect of earmold fit on predicted real ear SPL using a real ear to coupler difference procedure. Ear Hear 2000; 21 (04) 310-317
- 32 Johnstone PM, Yeager KR, Pomeroy ML, Hawk N. Open-fit domes and children with bilateral high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss: benefits and outcomes. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (04) 348-356
- 33 Bentler R, Mueller HG, Ricketts T. Modern Hearing Aids: Verification, Outcome Measures, and Follow-Up. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2016
- 34 Agnew, J. (1996). Acoustic Feedback and Other Audible Artifacts in Hearing Aids, Trends in Amplification: 1(2): 45-82. doi: 10.1177/108471389600100202.
- 35 Vogl, S., & Blau, M. (2019). Individualized prediction of the sound pressure at the eardrum for an earpiece with integrated receivers and microphones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 145(2), 917-930. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5089219.