TY - JOUR
T1 - Audiologist-Driven Versus Patient-Driven Fine Tuning of Hearing Instruments
AU - Boymans, Monique
AU - Dreschler, Wouter A.
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - Two methods of fine tuning the initial settings of hearing aids were compared: An audiologist-driven approach-using real ear measurements and a patient-driven fine-tuning approach-using feedback from real-life situations. The patient-driven fine tuning was conducted by employing the Amplifit (R) II system using audiovideo clips. The audiologist-driven fine tuning was based on the NAL-NL1 prescription rule. Both settings were compared using the same hearing aids in two 6-week trial periods following a randomized blinded cross-over design. After each trial period, the settings were evaluated by insertion-gain measurements. Performance was evaluated by speech tests in quiet, in noise, and in time-reversed speech, presented at 0 degrees and with spatially separated sound sources. Subjective results were evaluated using extensive questionnaires and audiovisual video clips. A total of 73 participants were included. On average, higher gain values were found for the audiologist-driven settings than for the patient-driven settings, especially at 1000 and 2000 Hz. Better objective performance was obtained for the audiologist-driven settings for speech perception in quiet and in time-reversed speech. This was supported by better scores on a number of subjective judgments and in the subjective ratings of video clips. The perception of loud sounds scored higher than when patient-driven, but the overall preference was in favor of the audiologist-driven settings for 67% of the participants
AB - Two methods of fine tuning the initial settings of hearing aids were compared: An audiologist-driven approach-using real ear measurements and a patient-driven fine-tuning approach-using feedback from real-life situations. The patient-driven fine tuning was conducted by employing the Amplifit (R) II system using audiovideo clips. The audiologist-driven fine tuning was based on the NAL-NL1 prescription rule. Both settings were compared using the same hearing aids in two 6-week trial periods following a randomized blinded cross-over design. After each trial period, the settings were evaluated by insertion-gain measurements. Performance was evaluated by speech tests in quiet, in noise, and in time-reversed speech, presented at 0 degrees and with spatially separated sound sources. Subjective results were evaluated using extensive questionnaires and audiovisual video clips. A total of 73 participants were included. On average, higher gain values were found for the audiologist-driven settings than for the patient-driven settings, especially at 1000 and 2000 Hz. Better objective performance was obtained for the audiologist-driven settings for speech perception in quiet and in time-reversed speech. This was supported by better scores on a number of subjective judgments and in the subjective ratings of video clips. The perception of loud sounds scored higher than when patient-driven, but the overall preference was in favor of the audiologist-driven settings for 67% of the participants
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713811424884
DO - https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713811424884
M3 - Article
C2 - 22143874
SN - 1084-7138
VL - 16
SP - 49
EP - 58
JO - Trends in amplification
JF - Trends in amplification
IS - 1
ER -