Skip to main content
The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology
Download PDF

Comparison of three fitting rationales in adults in an artificial intelligence parallel processing hearing aid

The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology volume 29, pages 104–117 (2013)Cite this article

En

Abstract

Introduction

Hearing rehabilitation using nonlinear hearing aid (HA) fitting formulae provides hearing-impaired individuals with the audibility, comfort, and speech intelligibility for a better life.

Objective

To compare three nonlinear HA fitting formulae in adults in a Channel Free artificial intelligence parallel processing HA.

Materials and methods

The study included 19 adults with bilateral moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss, monaurally fitted with nonlinear HA. Comparisons were made on the basis of aided speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise, aided sound field thresholds, and functional performance in real life using APHAB, COSI, and GHABP questionnaires.

Results

The three formulae have significantly improved speech discrimination in adults, with no significant difference among the formulae for speech intelligibility in quiet or in noise, with no sex or HA experience differences. The three formulae have significantly improved functional performance in real-life speech communication, with the NAL-NL1-based formula showing the greatest degree of benefit and improvement in listening needs, followed by NAL-NL1 and then DSL [I/O]. However, amplification with the three formulae increased aversiveness to environmental sounds. Participants reported significant benefits using NAL and NAL-NL1-based formulae. Experienced HA users, using the NAL-NL1-based formula, showed significantly less difficulty in listening quality in large spaces and greater capacity to recognize speech within competitive noise and better tolerance to environmental sounds than nonexperienced users. The SPIN test correlated well with real-life speech communication.

Conclusion

The three fitting rationales have equally improved intelligibility, with variable degrees of improvement in real-life speech communication with preferences for NAL-NL1 and the manufacture-specific NAL-NL1-based formula.

References

  1. Schum DJ The core features of modern HAs. Available at: http://www.oticonusa.com/Oticon/Professional_Resources/Library/News_From_Oticon_/september_2005.html [Accessed 8 August 2011].

  2. Haskell G, Noffsinger D, Larson V, Williams D, Dobie R, Rogers J. Subjective measurement of HAs benefit in the NIDCD/VA Clinical Trial. Ear Hear. 2002; 23: 301–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Noffsinger D, Haskell GB, Larson VD, Williams DW, Wilson E, Plunkett S, Kenworthy D. Quality rating test of hearing aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA clinical trial. Ear Hear. 2002; 23: 291–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boothroyd A, Springer N, Smith L, Schulman J. Amplitude compression and profound hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res. 1988; 31: 362–376.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuk F. Recent approaches to fitting non linear HAs. In: Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H, Roeser R, et al., editors. Audiology treatment. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 2000. pp. 261–289.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schum DJ, Beck DL Modern applications of multi-channel non-linear amplifications. News from Oticon 2005; 1–5.

  7. Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995; 97: 1854–1864.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dillon H. NAL-NL 1: a new procedure for fitting non-linear HAs. Hear J. 1999; 52: 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1995; 16: 176–186.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Surr RK, Cord MT, Walden BE. Long-term versus short-term hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol. 1998; 9: 165–171.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Valente M, Potts L, Valente M. Clinical procedures to improve user satisfaction with HAs. In practical hearing aid selection mid fining (monograph 001, 75–93). Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 1997; 8: 27–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gatehouse S. The Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of a client-centred outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999; 10: 80–103.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Weinstein BE, Spitzer JB, Ventry IM. Test-retest reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly. Ear Hear. 1986; 7: 295–299.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. American National Standard Institute (ANSI). Specification for instruments to measure aural acoustic impedance and admittance (aural acoustic immittance). S3.39. New York: ANSI; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Soliman SM, Fathalla A, Shehata M. Development of Arabic staggered spondee words (SSW) test: in proceedings of 8th Ain Shams Medical Congress, Cairo, Egypt. 1985; 2:1220–1246.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Soliman SM. Speech discrimination audiometry using Arabic phonetically-balanced words. Ain Shams Med J. 1976; 27: 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dillon H. Selecting hearing aid issues for children. Chapter 15. In: Dillon H, editor. Hearing Aids. 1st ed. New York: Thieme Publishing; 2001. pp. 404–433.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L, Moodie S, Bagatto M, Laurnagaray D, et al. The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif. 2005; 9: 159–197.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Macrae J, Frazer G. An investigation of variables affecting aided thresholds. Aust J Audiol. 1980; 2: 56–62.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Polonenko MJ, Scollie SD, Moodie S, Seewald RC, Laurnagaray D, Shantz J, Richards A. Fit to targets, preferred listening levels, and self-reported outcomes for the DSL v5.0a hearing aid prescription for adults. Int J Audiol. 2010;49:550–560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Scollie S DSL version v 5.0: description and early results in children. Audiology Online. Available at: https://www.audiologyonline.com [Accessed 5 July 2011].

  23. Dillon H. What’s new from NAL in hearing aid prescriptions? Hear J. 2006; 59: 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Keidser G, Dillon H. What’s new in prescriptive fittings down under? In: Seewald R, editor. Hearing care for adults. Chapter 10. Stafa, Switzerland: Phonak AG; 2007. pp. 133–142.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Souza P Translating compression research into clinical decisions. Audiology Online. Available at: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/translating-compression-research-into-clinical-948 [Accessed 30 November 2011].

  26. Kuk F, Ludvigsen C. Reconsidering the concept of the aided threshold for nonlinear hearing aids. Trends Amplif. 2003; 7: 77–97.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuk F, Keenan D, Ludvigsen C. Is real-world directional benefit predictable? Hear Rev. 2004; 11: 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Byrne D, Dillon H, Ching T, Katsch R, Keidser G. NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001; 12: 37–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Venema T The NAL-NL1 fitting method. Available at: http://www.audiologyonline.com [Accessed 8 August 2011].

  30. Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S 2011 The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Research, North America Available at: http://www.audiologyresearch.org [Accessed 1 March 2011].

  31. Boike KT, Souza PE. Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000; 43: 456–468.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hohmann V, Kollmeier B. The effect of multichannel dynamic compression on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995; 97: 1191–1195.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hornsby BWY, Ricketts TA. The effects of compression ratio, signal-to-noise ratio, and level on speech recognition in normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 109: 2964–2973.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosengard PS, Payton KL, Braida LD. Effect of slow-acting wide dynamic range compression on measures of intelligibility and ratings of speech quality in simulated-loss listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005; 48: 702–714.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Verschuure H, Prinsen TT, Dreschler WA. The effects of syllabic compression and frequency shaping on speech intelligibility in hearing impaired people. Ear Hear. 1994; 15: 13–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jenstad LM, Van Tasell DJ, Ewert C. Hearing aid troubleshooting based on patients’ descriptions. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003; 14: 347–360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Hellman S, Levitt H. Effect of compression ratio in a slow-acting compression hearing aid: paired-comparison judgments of quality. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 96: 1471–1478.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Reyneke MA. Comparison of two non-linear prescriptive methods used with digital hearing instrument fittings in children [Master’s Dissertation]. University of Pretoria, South Africa. Available at: http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-02112005-091556/; [Accessed 2 February 2012]; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: normative data for the client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and the hearing aid user’s questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol. 1999; 10: 67–79.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Amorim RM, Almeida K. Study of benefit and of acclimatization in recent users of hearing aids. Pro Fono. 2007; 19: 39–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bucuvic EC, Iorio MCM. Benefit and hearing difficulties: a study of new users of hearing aids after two and six months of use. Fono Atual. 2004; 29: 19–29 Quoted from Amorim and Almeida [41].

    Google Scholar 

  43. Johnson JA, Cox RM, Alexander GC. Development of APHAB norms for WDRC hearing aids and comparisons with original norms. Ear Hear. 2010; 31: 47–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Convery E, Keidser G, Dillon H. A review and analysis: does amplification experience have an effect on preferred gain over time? Aust N Z J Audiol. 2005; 27: 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Keidser G, Limareff HS, Simmons S, Gul C, Hayes Z, Sawers C, et al. Clinical evaluation of Australian Hearing’s guidelines for fitting multiple memory hearing aids. Aust N Z J Audiol. 2005; 27: 51–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Keidser G, Dillon H, Drylund O, Carter L, Hartley D. Preferred low- and high-frequency compression ratios among hearing aid users with moderately severe to profound hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007; 18: 17–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Keidser G, O’Brien A, Carter L, McLelland M, Yeend I. Variation in preferred gain with experience for hearing-aid users. Int J Audiol. 2008; 47: 621–635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Marriage J, Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI. Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users. Int J Audiol. 2004; 43: 198–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cox RM, Alexander GC. Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements. Ear Hear. 1992; 13: 131–141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Horwitz AR, Turner CW. The time course of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1997; 18: 1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Munro KJ, Lutman ME. The effect of speech presentation level on measurement of auditory acclimatization to amplified speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 114: 484–495.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Keidser G, Dillon H, Convery E. The effect of the base line response on self-adjustments of hearing aid gain. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008; 124: 1668–1681.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Smeds K, Keidser G, Zakis J, Dillon H, Leijon A, Grant F, et al. Preferred overall loudness. I: sound field presentation in the laboratory. Int J Audiol. 2006; 45: 2–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Smeds K, Keidser G, Zakis J, Dillon H, Leijon A, Grant F, et al. Preferred overall loudness. II: listening through hearing aids in field and laboratory tests. Int J Audiol. 2006; 45: 12–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Audiology Unit, Department of Otolaryngology, Kasr Al-Aini Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, 5 Cairo University Street, Flat 21, 6th floor, Giza Square, 12211, Cairo, Egypt

    Mohamed I. Shabana & Abeir O. Dabbous MD

  2. Audiology Unit, Department of Otolaryngology, Beni-Suef Faculty of Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef, Egypt

    Tarek El-Dessouky & Rabab A. Koura

Authors
  1. Mohamed I. Shabana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abeir O. Dabbous MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tarek El-Dessouky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rabab A. Koura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abeir O. Dabbous MD.

Additional information

Conflicts of interest

The authors have the following perceived conflict of interest: Hearing aids included in this study were bought from the hearing aid dispenser with a financial donation that was offered by a benefactor who is unrelated to the dispensing company. A single hearing aid was given to each patient (monaural fitting) -due to the limited amount of money donated.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shabana, M.I., Dabbous, A.O., El-Dessouky, T. et al. Comparison of three fitting rationales in adults in an artificial intelligence parallel processing hearing aid. Egypt J Otolaryngol 29, 104–117 (2013). https://doi.org/10.7123/01.EJO.0000426379.79006.40

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.7123/01.EJO.0000426379.79006.40

Keywords