Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(05): 354-362
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.19057
Research Article
American Academy of Audiology. All rights reserved. (2020) American Academy of Audiology

Evaluation of Hearing Aid Manufacturers' Software-Derived Fittings to DSL v5.0 Pediatric Targets

Paula Folkeard
1   Faculty of Health Sciences, National Centre for Audiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
Marlene Bagatto
1   Faculty of Health Sciences, National Centre for Audiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
2   School of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
,
Susan Scollie
1   Faculty of Health Sciences, National Centre for Audiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
2   School of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations Funding This project was supported in part by the Ontario Research Fund RE08-072.
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
09 June 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Hearing aid prescriptive methods are a commonly recommended component of evidence-based preferred practice guidelines and are often implemented in the hearing aid programming software. Previous studies evaluating hearing aid manufacturers' software-derived fittings to prescriptions have shown significant deviations from targets. However, few such studies examined the accuracy of software-derived fittings for the Desired Sensation Level (DSL) v5.0 prescription.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of software-derived fittings to the DSL v5.0 prescription, across a range of hearing aid brands, audiograms, and test levels.

Research Design This study is a prospective chart review with simulated cases.

Data Collection and Analysis A set of software-derived fittings were created for a six-month-old test case, across audiograms ranging from mild to profound. The aided output from each fitting was verified in the test box at 55-, 65-, 75-, and 90-dB SPL, and compared with DSL v5.0 child targets. The deviations from target across frequencies 250-6000 Hz were calculated, together with the root-mean-square error (RMSE) from target. The aided Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) values generated for the speech passages at 55- and 65-dB SPL were compared with published norms.

Study Sample Thirteen behind-the-ear style hearing aids from eight manufacturers were tested.

Results The amount of deviation per frequency was dependent on the test level and degree of hearing loss. Most software-derived fittings for mild-to-moderately severe hearing losses fell within ± 5 dB of the target for most frequencies. RMSE results revealed more than 84% of those hearing aid fittings for the mild-to-moderate hearing losses were within 5 dB at all test levels. Fittings for severe to profound hearing losses had the greatest deviation from target and RMSE. Aided SII values for the mild-to-moderate audiograms fell within the normative range for DSL pediatric fittings, although they fell within the lower portion of the distribution. For more severe losses, SII values for some hearing aids fell below the normative range.

Conclusions In this study, use of the software-derived manufacturers' fittings based on the DSL v5.0 pediatric targets set most hearing aids within a clinically acceptable range around the prescribed target, particularly for mild-to-moderate hearing losses. However, it is likely that clinician adjustment based on verification of hearing aid output would be required to optimize the fit to target, maximize aided SII, and ensure appropriate audibility across all degrees of hearing loss.

Keywords

Desired Sensation Level - fit to target - hearing aid verification - hearing aids - pediatric - Speech Inelligibility Index
 

  • References

  • 1 American Academy of Audiology (AAA). American Academy of Audiology Clinical Practice Guidelines on Pediatric Amplification. 2013 https://galster.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/AAA-2013-Pediatric-Amp-Guidelines.pdf . Accessed March 16, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification of Hearing Aid Characteristics. ANSI 3.22. New York, NY: ANSI; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Amlani AM, Pumford J, Gessling E. Real-ear measurement and its impact on aided audibility and patient loyalty. Hearing Review. 2017 http://www.hearingreview.com/2017/09/real-ear-measurementimpact-aided-audibility-patient-loyalty/ . Accessed April 6, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification of hearing aid characteristics. ANSI 3.22. New York, NY: ANSI; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Bagatto M, Moodie S, Brown C, Malandrino A, Richert F, Clench D, Scollie S. 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bagatto M, Moodie S, Scollie S, Seewald R, Moodie K, Pumford J, Liu KPR. Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the Desired Sensation Level method. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (04) 199-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bagatto MP, Moodie ST, Malandrino AC, Richert FM, Clench DA, Scollie SD. The University of Western Ontario pediatric audiological monitoring protocol. Trends Amplif 2011; 15 (01) 57-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Baker S, Jenstad L. Matching real-ear targets for adult hearing aid fittings: NAL-NL1 and DSL v5.0 prescriptive formulae. Can J Speech Lang Pathol 2017; 41 (02) 227-235
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Bisgaard N, Vlaming M, Dahlquist M. Standard audiograms for the IEC 60118-15 measurement procedure. Trends Amplif 2010; 14 (12) 113-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ching T, Quar T, Johnson E, Newall P, Sharma M. Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in hearing aids fit to children with severe or profound hearing loss: goodness of fit-to-targets, impacts on predicted loudness and speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (03) 260-274
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Holube I, Fredelake S, Vlaming M, Kollmeier B. Development and analysis of an international speech test signal (ISTS). Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (12) 891-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S. The NALNL2 prescription procedure. Audiol Res 2011; 1 (01) e24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kirkwood DH. Survey: dispensers fitted more hearing aids in 2005 at higher prices. Hear J 2006; 59 (04) 40-50
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Krishnan LA, Simpson JM. Stop the Madness: Verify Hearing Aid Fittings! Hope for the Future?. 2018 https://www.audiology.org/novemberdecember-2018/stop-madness-verify-hearing-aidfittings-hope-future-title-inspired-roeser-and . Accessed April 4, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Leavitt R, Bentler R, Flexer C. Hearing aid programming practices in Oregon: fitting errors and real ear measures. Hear Rev 2017; 24 (06) 30-33
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Leavitt R, Flexer C. The importance of audibility in successful amplification of hearing loss. Hearing Review. 2012 http://www.hearingreview.com/2012/12/the-importance-of-audibilityin-successful-amplification-of-hearing-loss/ . Accessed April 4, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 McCreery R, Bentler RA, Roush P. The characteristics of hearing aid fittings in infants and young children. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (06) 701-710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 McCreery R, Brennan M, Walker EA, Spratford M. Perceptual implications of level- and frequency-specific deviations from hearing aid prescription in children. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (09) 861-875
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 McCreery R, Walker EA, Spratford M, Bentler R, Holte L, Roush P, Oleson J, Van Buren J, Moeller MP. Longitudinal predictors of aided speech audibility in infants and children. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (01) 24S-37S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Moodie ST, Rall E, Eiten L, Lindley G, Gordey D, Davidson L, Bagatto M, Scollie S. Pediatric audiology in North America: current clinical practice and how it relates to the AAA Pediatric Amplification Guideline. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (03) 166-187
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Moodie ST, Scollie S, Bagatto M, Keene K. The Network of Pediatric Audiologists of Canada. Fit to targets for the DSL v5.0 hearing aid prescription method for children. Am J Audiol 2017; 26 (03) 251-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mueller HG. Probe-mic measures: hearing aid fitting’s most neglected element. Hear J 2005; 57 (10) 33-41
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Mueller HG. 20Q: Today’s Use of Validated Prescriptive Methods for Fitting Hearing Aids–What Would Denis Say?. Article 14101. 2015 http://www.audiologyonline.com . Accessed March 8, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mueller HG, Picou EM. Survey examines the popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hear J 2010; 63 (05) 27-32
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ricketts TA, Mueller HG. Whose NAL-NL fitting method are you using?. Hear J 2009; 62 (08) 10-17
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Sanders J, Stoody T, Weber J, Mueller HG. Manufacturers’ NAL-NL2 fittings fail real-ear verification. Hear Rev 2015; 21 (03) 24
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L, Moodie S, Bagatto M, Laurnagaray D, Beaulac S, Pumford J. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (04) 159-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Seewald R, Mills J, Bagatto M, Scollie S, Moodie S. A comparison of manufacturer-specific prescriptive procedures for infants. Hear J 2008; 61 (11) 26-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar