Audiologist- Versus Patient-Driven Hearing Aid Fitting Protocols

ABSTRACT

Past research has demonstrated that predicted speech intelligibility is higher when hearing aids are adjusted using an audiologist-driven (AD) fitting protocol versus a patient-driven (PD) fitting protocol. This results from a greater amount of high-frequency amplification. Use of an AD fitting protocol assumes that the wearer will eventually adapt to the prescribed hearing aid settings. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the speech intelligibility and sound quality provided by hearing aids adjusted using an AD versus a PD fitting protocol. In addition, the degree of adaptation to the loudness and sound quality provided by AD settings was investigated over an 8-week period. Analysis of group data showed that the AD protocol, as implemented in this investigation, did not yield higher speech intelligibility. In addition, no significant changes in loudness and/or sound quality judgments were found over the 8-week period. Several participants did demonstrate significant adaptation. Reasons for the lack of adaptation in most participants are hypothesized. These include degree of damage to the cochlea and differences in loudness growth patterns between individuals with hearing loss and individuals with normal hearing.

KEYWORD

Hearing aids - hearing loss - adaptation

REFERENCES

• 1 Lindley G, Palmer C, Durrant J, Pratt S. Adaptation to loudness and environmental stimuli in three newly fitted hearing aid users.  J Am Acad Audiol . 2000;  11 316-322
• 2 Rankovic C. Derivation of frequency-gain characteristics for maximizing speech perception in noise.  J Speech Hear Res . 1995;  38 913-930
• 3 Ricketts T. Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures.  Ear Hear . 1996;  17 124-132
• 4 Stelmachowicz P, Dalzell S, Peterson D, Kopun J, Lewis D, Hoover B. Comparison of threshold-based fitting strategies for nonlinear hearing aids.  Ear Hear . 1998;  19 131-138
• 5 Cornelisse L, Seewald R, Jamieson D. The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1995;  97 1854-1864
• 6 Valente M, Van Vliet D. The independent hearing aid fitting forum (IHAFF) protocol.  Trends Amplification . 1997;  2 6-35
• 7 Gitles T, Niquette P. FIG6 in ten.  Hear Rev . 1995;  2 28-30
• 8 Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid.  Ear Hear . 1986;  7 257-265
• 9 American National Standards Institute. Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. ANSI S2.5-1997. New York: ANSI; 1997 Accredited Standards Committee S3, Bioacoustics
• 10 American National Standards Institute. Procedure for the Computation of Loudness of Noise. ANSI S3.4-1980. Accredited Standards Committee S3, Bioacoustics New York: ANSI; 1980
• 11 Palmer C, Valente M, Powers T A, Mueller H G. The impact of restoring normal loudness growth on speech understanding as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and input level. Paper presented at NIH/VA Hearing Aid Research and Development Conference, Bethesda, MD, September 1997
• 12 Lindley G. Audiologist versus patient-driven hearing aid fitting protocols. Unpublished dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 2000
• 13 Allen J, Hall J, Jeng P. Loudness growth in 1/2-octave bands (LGOB): a procedure for the assessment of loudness.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1990;  88 745-753
• 14 Davis H, Hudgins C, Marquis R. The selection of hearing aids.  Laryngoscope . 1946;  56 85-163
• 15 Schmitz H. Loudness discomfort level modification.  J Speech Hear Res . 1969;  12 807-817
• 16 Silverman S. Tolerance for pure tone and speech in normal and defective hearing.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol . 1947;  56 658-676
• 17 Byrne D, Dirks D. Effects of acclimatization and deprivation on non-speech auditory abilities.  Ear Hear . 1986;  17 29S-37S
• 18 Gatehouse S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1992;  92 1258-1268
• 19 Walden B, Schuchman G, Sedge R. The reliability and validity of the comfort level method of setting hearing aid gain.  J Speech Hear Disord . 1977;  42 455-461
• 20 Berger K, Hagberg E. Gain usage based on hearing aid experience and subject age.  Ear Hear . 1982;  3 235-237
• 21 Leijon A, Lindkvist A, Anders R, Israelsson B. Preferred hearing aid gain in everyday use after prescriptive fitting.  Ear Hear . 1990;  11 299-303
• 22 Bentler R, Niebuhr D, Getta J, Anderson C. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. I: Objective measures.  J Speech Hear Res . 1993;  36 808-819
• 23 Kuk F, Lau C. Effect of hearing aid experience on preferred insertion gain selection.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1996;  7 274-281
• 24 Horwitz A, Turner C. The time course of hearing aid benefit.  Ear Hear . 1997;  18 1-11
• 25 Humes L, Barlow N, Garner C, Wilson D. Prescribed clinician-fit versus as-worn coupler gain in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers.  J Speech Lang Hear Res . 2000;  43 879-892
• 26 Hawkins D, Naidoo S. Comparison of sound quality and clarity with asymmetrical peak clipping and compression output limiting.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1994;  4 221-228
• 27 Fortune T, Preeves D. Hearing aid saturation, coherence, and aided loudness discomfort.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1992;  3 81-93
• 28 Palmer C. The impact of hearing loss and hearing aid experience on sound quality judgments.  Semin Hear . 2001;  22 125-138
• 29 Ovegaard A, Lundberg G, Hagerman B, Gabrielsson A, Bengtsson M, Brandstrom U. Sound quality judgment during acclimatization of hearing aid.  Scand Audiol . 1997;  26 43-51
• 30 Keppel G. Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
• 31 Nilsson M, Soli S, Sullivan J. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1994;  95 1085-1099
• 32 Edgerton B, Danhauer J. Clinical Implications of Speech Discrimination Testing Using Nonsense Syllables.  Baltimore: University Press; 1979
• 33 Edgerton B, Danhauer J, Rizzo S. Practice effects for normal listeners performance on a nonsense syllable test.  J Aud Res . 1981;  21 125-131
• 34 Cox R, McDaniel D. Development of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons.  J Speech Hear Res . 1989;  32 347-352
• 35 Palmer C. The influence of individual ear canal and eardrum characteristics on speech intelligibility and sound quality judgments. Unpublished dissertation, Northwestern University, 1991
• 36 Palmer C, Wilber L, Killion M, Canter J. Influence of external ear characteristics on intelligibility and quality judgments.  ASHA . 1991;  33 161
• 37 Cox R, Alexander G, Taylor I, Gray G. The contour test of loudness perception.  Ear Hear . 1997;  18 388-400
• 38 Cox R, Rivera I. Predictability and reliability of hearing aid benefit measured using the PHAB.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1992;  3 242-254
• 39 Arlinger S, Gatehouse S, Benter R. Report of the Eriksholm workshop on auditory deprivation and acclimatization.  Ear Hear . 1996;  17 87S-90S
• 40 Turner C, Cummings K. Speech audibility for listeners with high frequency hearing loss.  Am J Audiol . 1999;  8 47-56
• 41 Bentler R, Pavlovic C. Comparison of discomfort levels obtained with pure tones and multitone complexes.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1989;  86 126-132
• 42 Garnier S, Micheyl C, Arthaud P, Berger-Vachon C, Collet L. Temporal loudness integration and spectral loudness summation in normal-hearing and hearing impaired listeners.  Acta Otolaryngol . 1999;  119 154-157