Cargando…
Comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit
PURPOSE: The initial-fit provided by the hearing aid manufacturer’s software is generally a display of measurement done in the ear simulators. The need for verification of hearing aid output and gain in the real ear using probe-microphone measurement to match the prescriptive target is highlighted....
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9886103/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34669764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20212020310 |
_version_ | 1784880065588232192 |
---|---|
author | Narayanan, Sreena Ediyarath Manjula, Puttabasappa |
author_facet | Narayanan, Sreena Ediyarath Manjula, Puttabasappa |
author_sort | Narayanan, Sreena Ediyarath |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The initial-fit provided by the hearing aid manufacturer’s software is generally a display of measurement done in the ear simulators. The need for verification of hearing aid output and gain in the real ear using probe-microphone measurement to match the prescriptive target is highlighted. The objective of the study was to evaluate the difference in real-ear aided response (REAR), real-ear insertion gain (REIG), aided thresholds, articulation index (AI) and word recognition score (WRS) in quiet, with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and NAL-NL1 optimized-fit using the probe-microphone technique. METHODS: In a repeated measure experimental design, 11 participants with a mean age of 41.09 (SD=±9.95) years having moderate and moderately-severe sensorineural hearing loss were tested monaurally in two aided conditions, with a 16-channel hearing aid programmed for manufacturer’s NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit to NAL-NL1 using probe-microphone verification. The REAR, REIG, aided threshold, articulation index and word recognition scores in quiet were obtained for both aided conditions. RESULTS: The REAR, REIG, aided threshold, AI and WRS in quiet were significantly better with the NAL-NL1 optimized-fit compared to manufacturer’s NAL-NL1 first-fit. CONCLUSION: The optimized-fit yields better audibility and improved word recognition in quiet. This supports best practice guidelines of many professional organizations regarding the use of probe-microphone measurement as the “Gold standard” for verification of hearing aid fitting, thereby providing better satisfaction and quality of life to hearing aid users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9886103 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98861032023-02-01 Comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit Narayanan, Sreena Ediyarath Manjula, Puttabasappa Codas Original Article PURPOSE: The initial-fit provided by the hearing aid manufacturer’s software is generally a display of measurement done in the ear simulators. The need for verification of hearing aid output and gain in the real ear using probe-microphone measurement to match the prescriptive target is highlighted. The objective of the study was to evaluate the difference in real-ear aided response (REAR), real-ear insertion gain (REIG), aided thresholds, articulation index (AI) and word recognition score (WRS) in quiet, with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and NAL-NL1 optimized-fit using the probe-microphone technique. METHODS: In a repeated measure experimental design, 11 participants with a mean age of 41.09 (SD=±9.95) years having moderate and moderately-severe sensorineural hearing loss were tested monaurally in two aided conditions, with a 16-channel hearing aid programmed for manufacturer’s NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit to NAL-NL1 using probe-microphone verification. The REAR, REIG, aided threshold, articulation index and word recognition scores in quiet were obtained for both aided conditions. RESULTS: The REAR, REIG, aided threshold, AI and WRS in quiet were significantly better with the NAL-NL1 optimized-fit compared to manufacturer’s NAL-NL1 first-fit. CONCLUSION: The optimized-fit yields better audibility and improved word recognition in quiet. This supports best practice guidelines of many professional organizations regarding the use of probe-microphone measurement as the “Gold standard” for verification of hearing aid fitting, thereby providing better satisfaction and quality of life to hearing aid users. Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia 2021-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9886103/ /pubmed/34669764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20212020310 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Narayanan, Sreena Ediyarath Manjula, Puttabasappa Comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit |
title | Comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit |
title_full | Comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit |
title_fullStr | Comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit |
title_short | Comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to NAL-NL1 first-fit and optimized-fit |
title_sort | comparison of performance with hearing aid programmed to nal-nl1 first-fit and optimized-fit |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9886103/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34669764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20212020310 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT narayanansreenaediyarath comparisonofperformancewithhearingaidprogrammedtonalnl1firstfitandoptimizedfit AT manjulaputtabasappa comparisonofperformancewithhearingaidprogrammedtonalnl1firstfitandoptimizedfit |