J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(02): 118-124
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16107
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Survey of Current Practice in the Fitting and Fine-Tuning of Common Signal-Processing Features in Hearing Aids for Adults

Melinda C. Anderson
*   University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
†   University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
Kathryn H. Arehart
†   University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
Pamela E. Souza
‡   Knowles Hearing Center, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)



Current guidelines for adult hearing aid fittings recommend the use of a prescriptive fitting rationale with real-ear verification that considers the audiogram for the determination of frequency-specific gain and ratios for wide dynamic range compression. However, the guidelines lack recommendations for how other common signal-processing features (e.g., noise reduction, frequency lowering, directional microphones) should be considered during the provision of hearing aid fittings and fine-tunings for adult patients.


The purpose of this survey was to identify how audiologists make clinical decisions regarding common signal-processing features for hearing aid provision in adults.

Research Design:

An online survey was sent to audiologists across the United States. The 22 survey questions addressed four primary topics including demographics of the responding audiologists, factors affecting selection of hearing aid devices, the approaches used in the fitting of signal-processing features, and the strategies used in the fine-tuning of these features.

Study Sample:

A total of 251 audiologists who provide hearing aid fittings to adults completed the electronically distributed survey. The respondents worked in a variety of settings including private practice, physician offices, university clinics, and hospitals/medical centers.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Data analysis was based on a qualitative analysis of the question responses. The survey results for each of the four topic areas (demographics, device selection, hearing aid fitting, and hearing aid fine-tuning) are summarized descriptively.


Survey responses indicate that audiologists vary in the procedures they use in fitting and fine-tuning based on the specific feature, such that the approaches used for the fitting of frequency-specific gain differ from other types of features (i.e., compression time constants, frequency lowering parameters, noise reduction strength, directional microphones, feedback management). Audiologists commonly rely on prescriptive fitting formulas and probe microphone measures for the fitting of frequency-specific gain and rely on manufacturers’ default settings and recommendations for both the initial fitting and the fine-tuning of signal-processing features other than frequency-specific gain.


The survey results are consistent with a lack of published protocols and guidelines for fitting and adjusting signal-processing features beyond frequency-specific gain. To streamline current practice, a transparent evidence-based tool that enables clinicians to prescribe the setting of other features from individual patient characteristics would be desirable.

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (R01 DC012289).

Portions of this study were presented at AudiologyNOW! conference of the American Academy of Audiology in Phoenix, AZ, April 13–16, 2016.


  • Abrams HB, Kihm J. 2015; An introduction to MarkeTrak IX: a new baseline for the hearing aid market. Hear Rev 22 (06) 16
  • Alexander J. 2016 a Frequency lowering fitting assistants. Purdue University EAR Lab. http://web.ics.purdue.edu/∼alexan14/fittingassistants.html . Accessed July 20, 2016.
  • Alexander JM. 2016; b Nonlinear frequency compression: influence of start frequency and input bandwidth on consonant and vowel recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 139 (02) 938-957
  • Anderson MC, Arehart KH, Kates JM. 2009 The acoustic and perceptual effects of series and parallel processing. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process. . Doi: 10.1155/2009/619805
  • ASHA Ad Hoc Committee on Hearing Aid Section and Fitting 1998; Guidelines for hearing aid fitting for adults. Am J Audiol 7: 5-13
  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) 2015 2014 Audiology Survey report: survey methodology, respondent demographics, and glossary. http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/2015-SLP-Health-Care-Survey-Demographics.pdf . Accessed July 20, 2016
  • Appleby R. 2012; Noise management in modern hearing aids fittings. Hear Rev 19 (05) 44-51
  • Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler WA. 2015; Acoustical and perceptual comparison of noise reduction and compression in hearing aids. J Speech Lang Hear Res 58 (04) 1363-1376
  • Chung K. 2014; Frequency compression: new research yields clues for patient selection. Hear J 67: 14-16
  • Cox RM. 2005; Evidence-based practice in provision of amplification. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (07) 419-438
  • Franck BA, van Kreveld-Bos CS, Dreschler WA, Verschuure H. 1999; Evaluation of spectral enhancement in hearing aids, combined with phonemic compression. J Acoust Soc Am 106 (03) 1452-1464
  • Galster JA, Rodemerk KS. 2013; Individual variability in benefit from fixed and adaptive directional microphones. Semin Hear 34 (01) 110-117
  • Galster JA, Valentine S, Dundas JA, Fitz K. 2011. Spectral iQ: Audibly Improving Access to High-Frequency Sounds. Eden Prairie, MN: White paper, Starkey Laboratories Inc;
  • Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. 2003; Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol 42 (01) (Suppl) S77-S85
  • Hopkins K, Khanom M, Dickinson AM, Munro KJ. 2014; Benefit from non-linear frequency compression hearing aids in a clinical setting: the effects of duration of experience and severity of high-frequency hearing loss. Int J Audiol 53 (04) 219-228
  • Jenstad LM, Van Tasell DJ, Ewert C. 2003; Hearing aid troubleshooting based on patients’ descriptions. J Am Acad Audiol 14 (07) 347-360
  • Kates J. 2008. Digital Hearing Aids. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing;
  • Keidser G, Dillon H, Convery E, Mejia J. 2013; Factors influencing individual variation in perceptual directional microphone benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (10) 955-968
  • Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S. 2011; The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Res 1 (01) e24
  • Lunner T, Sundewall-Thorén E. 2007; Interactions between cognition, compression, and listening conditions: effects on speech-in-noise performance in a two-channel hearing aid. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (07) 604-617
  • Moodie S, Rall E, Eiten L, Lindley G, Gordey D, Davidson L, Bagatto M, Scollie S.. 2016; 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 27: 166-187
  • Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. 2004; New version of the TEN test with calibrations in dB HL. Ear Hear 25 (05) 478-487
  • Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MA. 2010; Development of a new method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression: CAMEQ2-HF. Int J Audiol 49 (03) 216-227
  • Mueller HG. 2005; Probe-mic measures: hearing aid fitting’s most neglected element. Hear J 57 (10) 33-41
  • Mueller HG, Picou EM. 2010; Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hear J 63 (05) 27-32
  • Mueller HG, Weber J, Hornsby BW. 2006; The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif 10 (02) 83-93
  • Nabelek AK, Freyaldenhoven MC, Tampas JW, Burchfiel SB, Muenchen RA. 2006; Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol 17 (09) 626-639
  • Polonenko MJ, Scollie SD, Moodie S, Seewald RC, Laurnagaray D, Shantz J, Richards A. 2010; Fit to targets, preferred listening levels, and self-reported outcomes for the DSL v5.0 a hearing aid prescription for adults. Int J Audiol 49 (08) 550-560
  • Preminger JE, Carpenter R, Ziegler CH. 2005; A clinical perspective on cochlear dead regions: intelligibility of speech and subjective hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (08) 600-613, quiz 631–632
  • Rudner M, Foo C, Rönnberg J, Lunner T. 2009; Cognition and aided speech recognition in noise: specific role for cognitive factors following nine-week experience with adjusted compression settings in hearing aids. Scand J Psychol 50 (05) 405-418
  • Sheehan KB, McMillan SJ. 1999; Response variation in e-mail surveys: an exploration. J Advert Res 39 (04) 45-54
  • Souza P, Arehart K, Neher T. 2015; Working memory and hearing aid processing: literature findings, future directions, and clinical applications. Front Psychol 6: 1894
  • Swoboda WJ, Mühlberger N, Weikunat R, Schneeweiβ S. 1997; Internet surveys by direct mailing: an innovative way of collecting data. Soc Sci Comput Rev 15 (03) 242-255
  • Valente M, Abrams H, Benson D, Chisolm T, Citron D, Hampton D, Loavenbruck A, Ricketts T, Solodar H, Sweetow R. 2006; Guidelines for the audiological management of adult hearing impairment. Audiol Today 18 (05) 1-44