Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(08): 706-721
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17005
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

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

Michael Valente
*   Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Adult Audiology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
,
Kristi Oeding
*   Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Adult Audiology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
,
Alison Brockmeyer
*   Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Adult Audiology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
,
Steven Smith
*   Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Adult Audiology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
,
Dorina Kallogjeri
*   Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Adult Audiology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and American Academy of Audiology (AAA) have created Best Practice Guidelines for fitting hearing aids to adult patients. These guidelines recommend using real-ear measures (REM) to verify that measured output/gain of hearing aid(s) match a validated prescriptive target. Unfortunately, approximately 70–80% of audiologists do not routinely use REM when fitting hearing aids, instead relying on a manufacturer default “first-fit” setting. This is problematic because numerous studies report significant differences in REM between manufacturer first-fit and the same hearing aids using a REM or programmed-fit. These studies reported decreased prescribed gain/output in the higher frequencies for the first-fit compared with the programmed fit, which are important for recognizing speech. Currently, there is little research in peer-reviewed journals reporting if differences between hearing aids fitted using a manufacturer first-fit versus a programmed-fit result in significant differences in speech recognition in quiet, noise, and subjective outcomes.

Purpose:

To examine if significant differences were present in monosyllabic word and phoneme recognition (consonant-nucleus-consonant; CNC) in quiet, sentence recognition in noise (Hearing in Noise Test; HINT), and subjective outcomes using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ) questionnaires between hearing aids fit using one manufacturer’s first-fit and the same hearing aids with a programmed-fit using REM to National Acoustic Laboratories Nonlinear Version 2 (NAL-NL2) prescriptive target.

Research Design:

A double-blind randomized crossover design was used. Throughout the study, one investigator performed all REM whereas a second investigator measured speech recognition in quiet, noise, and scored subjective outcome measures.

Study Sample:

Twenty-four adults with bilateral normal sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss with no prior experience with amplification.

Data Collection and Analysis:

The hearing aids were fit using the proprietary manufacturer default first-fit and a programmed-fit to NAL-NL2 using real-ear insertion gain measures. The order of the two fittings was randomly assigned and counterbalanced. Participants acclimatized to each setting for four weeks and returned for assessment of performance via the revised CNC word lists, HINT, APHAB, and SSQ for the respective fitting.

Results:

(1) A significant median advantage of 15% (p < 0.001; 95% CI: 9.7–24.3%) for words and 7.7% (p < 0.001; 95% CI: 5.9–10.9%) for phonemes for the programmed-fit compared with first-fit at 50 dB sound pressure level (SPL) and 4% (p < 0.01; 95% CI: 1.7–6.3%) for words at 65 dB SPL; (2) No significant differences for the HINT reception threshold for sentences (RTS); (3) A significant median advantage of 4.2% [p < 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.6–13.2%] for the programmed-fit compared with the first-fit for the background noise subscale problem score for the APHAB; (4) No significant differences on the SSQ.

Conclusions:

Improved word and phoneme recognition for soft and words for average speech in quiet were reported for the programmed-fit. Seventy-nine percent of the participants preferred the programmed-fitting versus first-fit. Hearing aids, therefore, should be verified and programmed using REM to a prescriptive target versus no verification using a first-fit.

Key Words

hearing aid - manufacturer first-fit - programmed-fit - real-ear insertion gain (REIG) - real-ear measures (REM) - reception threshold for sentences (RTS)
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Aarts NL, Caffee CS. 2005; Manufacturer predicted and measured REAR values in adult hearing aid fitting: accuracy and clinical usefulness. Int J Audiol 44 (05) 293-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Aazh H, Moore BC. 2007; The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (08) 653-664
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Aazh H, Moore BC, Prasher D. 2012; The accuracy of matching target insertion gains with open-fit hearing aids. Am J Audiol 21 (02) 175-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Abrams HB, Chisolm TH, McManus M, McArdle R. 2012; Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (10) 768-778
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • American Academy of Audiology (AAA) 2006 Guidelines for the audiologic management of adult hearing impairment. Retrieved from: http://audiology.org/resources/documentlibrary/documents/haguidelines.pdf . Accessed January 4, 2016
    PubMed
  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2009. Specifications of Hearing aid Characteristics, ANSI S3.22–2009. New York, NY: ANSI;
    Google Scholar
  • ASHA Ad Hoc Committee on Hearing Aid Selection and Fitting 1998; Guidelines for hearing aid fitting for adults. Am J Audiol 7 (01) 5-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Boymans M, Dreschler WA. 2012; Audiologist-driven versus patient-driven fine tuning of hearing instruments. Trends Amplif 16 (01) 49-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • British Society of Audiology (BSA) 2007 Guidance on the use of real ear measurements to verify the fitting of digital signal processing hearing aids. http://www.thebsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/REM.pdf
    PubMed
  • Byrne D, Dillon H. 1986; The National Acoustic Laboratories’ (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 7 (04) 257-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Byrne D, Dillon H, Ching T, Katsch R, Keidser G. 2001; NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol 12 (01) 37-51
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Consumer Reports 2009; Hear well in a noisy world: hearing aids, hearing protection, and more. Consum Rep 74 (07) 32-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. 1995; The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16 (02) 176-186
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gatehouse S, Noble W. 2004; The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 43 (02) 85-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • G-Power3 2016 G*Power: statistical power analyses for windows and mac. Retrieved from: http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3
    PubMed
  • Holube I, Fredelake S, Vlaming M, Kollmeier B. 2010; Development and analysis of the international speech test signal (ISTS). Int J Audiol 49 (12) 891-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hostler M, Hostler J, Bamford J, Whitehouse H. 2004; A “goodness of fit calculator”. BSA News 43: 32-35
    Google Scholar
  • Keidser G, Dillon H, Carter L, O’Brien A. 2012; NAL-NL2 empirical adjustments. Trends Amplif 16 (04) 211-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. 2004; Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 116 4 Pt 1 2395-2405 Erratum (2006), 119(3):1888
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Leavitt R, Flexer C. 2012; The importance of audibility in successful amplification of hearing loss. Hear Rev 19 (13) 20-23
    Google Scholar
  • Mueller HG, Hornsby BW, Weber JE. 2008; Using trainable hearing aids to examine real-world preferred gain. J Am Acad Audiol 19 (10) 758-773
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mueller G, Picou E. 2010; Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hear J 63 (05) 27-28, 30, 32
    Google Scholar
  • Munro KJ, Puri R, Bird J, Smith M. 2016; 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 55 (04) 215-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. 1994; Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95 (02) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Oeding K, Valente M, Kerckhoff J. 2010; Effectiveness of the directional microphone in the Baha® Divino™. J Am Acad Audiol 21 (08) 546-557
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Peterson GE, Lehiste I. 1962; Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 27 (01) 62-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sanders J, Stoody T, Weber J, Mueller HG. 2015; Manufacturers’ NAL-NL2 fittings fail real-ear verification. Hear Rev 21 (03) 24-26, 28, 30, 32
    Google Scholar
  • Skinner MW, Holden LK, Fourakis MS, Hawks JW, Holden T, Arcaroli J, Hyde M. 2006; Evaluation of equivalency in two recordings of monosyllabic words. J Am Acad Audiol 17 (05) 350-366
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Swan IR, Gatehouse S. 1995; The value of routine in-the-ear measurement of hearing aid gain. Br J Audiol 29 (05) 271-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tillman T, Carhart R. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words: Northwestern University auditory test No. 6. 1966 Report SAM-TR-66-55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar