Estimation of Client-Assessed Hearing Aid Performance Based Upon Unaided Variables

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary J. Crowley ◽  
Igor V. Nabelek
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Predictor Variables ◽  
Regression Equations ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Personal Adjustment ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Comfortable Loudness ◽  
Response Variables

The purpose of this study was to investigate the possibility of estimating client-assessed hearing aid performance before hearing aids are purchased. Aided performance was represented by the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP, Cox & Gilmore, 1990). Multiple regression was applied to 16 unaided predictor variables and to 8 response variables. The response variables were the scores from the seven PHAP subscales plus the overall PHAP score, which were obtained from 46 participants. Audiologic, demographic, and psychological information was included among the 16 predictor variables. The average widths of 95% prediction intervals showed that, with the exception of the Aversiveness of Sounds and Ease of Communication subscales, PHAP subscale scores were predicted within 15% on average. Eighty percent or more of the individual participants’ PHAP scores were predicted within 15% for all but the Aversiveness of Sounds subscale. The predictor variables appearing in regression equations for the greatest number of PHAP subscales include age, Communication Strategies and Personal Adjustment scores from the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (Demorest & Erdman, 1986), Revised Speech Perception in Noise (Bilger, Neutzel, Rabinowitz, & Rzeczkowski, 1984; Kalikow, Stevens, & Elliott, 1977) test scores, comfortable loudness levels, and the difference between National Acoustic Laboratories’ target gain (Byrne & Dillon, 1986) and actual insertion gain. Further testing of the models on additional participants would be needed to determine their clinical applicability. In addition to being potentially useful for predicting client-assessed aided performance, the equations obtained in this study identify relationships between the aided and unaided variables that can be applied in the counseling of new hearing aid users.

Comparison of In-the-Ear and Over-the-Ear Hearing Aid Fittings

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna M. Risberg ◽  
Robyn M. Cox
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Functional Gain ◽  
The Relationship

A custom in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid fitting was compared to two over-the-ear (OTE) hearing aid fittings for each of 9 subjects with mild to moderately severe hearing losses. Speech intelligibility via the three instruments was compared using the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test. The relationship between functional gain and coupler gain was compared for the ITE and the higher rated OTE instruments. The difference in input received at the microphone locations of the two types of hearing aids was measured for 10 different subjects and compared to the functional gain data. It was concluded that (a) for persons with mild to moderately severe hearing losses, appropriately adjusted custom ITE fittings typically yield speech intelligibility that is equal to the better OTE fitting identified in a comparative evaluation; and (b) gain prescriptions for ITE hearing aids should be adjusted to account for the high-frequency emphasis associated with in-the-concha microphone placement.

scholarly journals Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Octav Chipara ◽  
Anna Gudjonsdottir ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Outcome Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Ecological Momentary

Abstract Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. Purpose To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. Research Design An observational study. Study Sample Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP. Results For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029–0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28–0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1. Conclusion The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.

scholarly journals Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-223
Author(s):  
James R. Dornhoffer ◽  
Ted A. Meyer ◽  
Judy R. Dubno ◽  
Theodore R. McRackan
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Patient Reported Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Purpose: To determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. Methods: Independent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit. Results: Significant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Hearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services.

Predicted Gain and Functional Gain With Transcranial Routing of Signal Completely-in-the-Canal Hearing Aids

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc A. Fagelson ◽  
Colleen M. Noe ◽  
Owen D. Murnane ◽  
Jennifer S. Blevins
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Mechanical Vibration ◽  
Signal Frequency ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
External Canal ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Acoustic Output ◽  
Functional Gain

Transcranial routing of signal (TCROS) was accomplished using completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids in 5 profoundly unilaterally hearing-impaired individuals. The functional gain realized by the participants far exceeded the gain predicted by measuring the acoustic output and real ear aided response of the hearing aids. The difference between predicted and functional gain increased with signal frequency and was attributed at least in part to mechanical vibration of the hearing aid in the external canal. Implications for fitting unilateral hearing loss using TCROS amplifying systems are discussed.

scholarly journals Earning Management through Marginal Effect of Firm Based and Regional Economic Indicators: A Study on Listed Firms in Kuwait

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 417-433
Author(s):  
Ahmed Nahar Al Hussaini
Keyword(s):  
Robust Regression ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Economic Indicators ◽  
Marginal Effect ◽  
Regression Equations ◽  
Credit Expansion ◽  
Regional Economic ◽  
Earning Capacity ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Individual

Under the situation of complex business firms, organizations are trying to enhance their earning capacity while competing in the marketplace. The core objective of the present study is to consider the Trading Income Ratio as a core indicator of earning capacity of the business through both firms based and regional economic indicators during the first half of the present decade. For this purpose, size, LR, credit expansion through the provision of loans, BDPS, GDP, and CPI has been considered. The effect of robust regression equations along with fixed and random effect explains that size, LR, and GDP are among the significant predictors for the earning capacity from 2011 to 2015. For the difference between the coefficient of fixed and random effect, the Hausman test is applied which indicates that the marginal effect of stated indicators is acceptable which are not correlated with the individual entities. In addition, the comparison through OLS dummies, fixed and areg (a category of linear regression) explains that again the size, LR and GDP are found to be the significant determinants of business earnings in the region of Kuwait.

scholarly journals A Perspective on the Application of Kapferer's Brand Identity Prism in the Branding Process of Hearing Aid Retail Companies

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-146
Author(s):  
Florian Ross
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Jel Classification ◽  
Brand Identity ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Healthcare It ◽  
Relevant Role ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Retail Company

Objective – The aim of this paper is to develop a baseline guide for the branding of hearing aids for use by Hearing Aid Retail Companies. Methodology/Technique – The individual dimensions of Kapferer's brand identity prism were analyzed and practically applied to the branding process of a Hearing Aid Retail Company. Findings – Each dimension plays a relevant role in a consistent branding process. The study concludes that Hearing Aid Retail Companies, particularly smaller ones, should focus on branding due to increasing competition to remain competitive in the market. Novelty – This paper deals with the practical implementation of Kapferer's brand identity prism in the context of Hearing Healthcare. It offers Hearing Healthcare Professionals a framework for the branding process. Type of Paper: Secondary Article – Editorial / Perspective Piece. JEL Classification: M31, M37 Abbreviation: HARC - Hearing Aid Retail Company Keywords: Branding; Marketing; Hearing Healthcare; Kapferer´s Brand Identity Prism. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ross, F. 2020. A Perspective on the Application of Kapferer's Brand Identity Prism in the Branding Process of Hearing Aid Retail Companies, J. Mgt. Mkt. Review 5(3) 141 – 146. https://doi.org/10.35609/jmmr.2020.5.3(2)

Initial-Fit Approach Versus Verified Prescription: Comparing Self-Perceived Hearing Aid Benefit

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 768-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey B. Abrams ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm ◽  
Megan McManus ◽  
Rachel McArdle
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Fitting Method ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Perceived Benefit ◽  
Eta Squared ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Background: Despite evidence suggesting inaccuracy in the default fittings provided by hearing aid manufacturers, the use of probe-microphone measures for the verification of fitting accuracy is routinely used by fewer than half of practicing audiologists. Purpose: The present study examined whether self-perception of hearing aid benefit, as measured through the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; Cox and Alexander, 1995), differed as a function of hearing aid fitting method, specifically, manufacturer's initial-fit approach versus a verified prescription. The prescriptive fit began at NAL-NL1 targets, with adjustments based on participant request. Each of the two fittings included probe-microphone measurement. Research Design: A counterbalanced, cross-over, repeated-measures, single-blinded design was utilized to address the research objectives. Study Sample: Twenty-two experienced hearing aid users from the general Bay Pines VA Healthcare System audiology clinic population were randomized into one of two intervention groups. Intervention: At the first visit, half of the participants were fit with new hearing aids via the manufacturer's initial fit while the second half were fit to a verified prescription using probe-microphone measurement. After a wear period of 4–6 wk, the participants' hearing aids were refit via the alternate method and worn for an additional 4–6 wk. Participants were blinded to the method of fitting by utilizing probe-microphone measures with both approaches. Data Collection and Analysis: The APHAB was administered at baseline and at the end of each intervention trial. At the end of the second trial period, the participants were asked to identify which hearing aid fitting was “preferred.” The APHAB data were subjected to a general linear model repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: For the three APHAB communication subscales (i.e., Ease of Communication, Reverberation, and Background Noise) mean scores obtained with the verified prescription were higher than those obtained with the initial-fit approach, indicating greater benefit with the former. The main effect of hearing aid fitting method was statistically significant [F (1, 21) = 4.69, p = 0.042] and accounted for 18% of the variance in the data (partial eta squared = 0.183). Although the mean benefit score for the APHAB Aversiveness subscale was also better (i.e., lower) for the verified prescription than the initial-fit approach, the difference was not statistically significant. Of the 22 participants, 7 preferred their hearing aids programmed to initial-fit settings and 15 preferred their hearing aids programmed to the verified prescription. Conclusions: The data support the conclusion that hearing aids fit to experienced hearing aid wearers using a verified prescription are more likely to yield better self-perceived benefit as measured by the APHAB than if fit using the manufacturer's initial-fit approach.

Loudness Matching of Signals Spectrally Shaped by a Simulated Hearing Aid

1993 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 357-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry Punch ◽  
Brad Rakerd
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
General Pattern ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Multiple Frequency ◽  
Frequency Range ◽  
Frequency Responses ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Spectral Tilt

A hearing aid with multiple frequency responses was simulated by programming an equalizer to produce spectral tilt factors of -6, 0, and +6 dB/octave over the frequency range from 0.25 kHz to 4 kHz. Listeners with normal hearing matched the loudness of signals (speech and white noise) that were shaped by these different equalizer settings and delivered via an insert earphone. All signals with spectra that were tilted, either negatively or positively, were perceived as louder than untilted signals. The general pattern of loudness matching was similar across subjects, and intrasubject judgments were found to be highly transitive. A measure of signal power was found to account only moderately well for the individual data. Preliminary evidence from a follow-up study using tilt factors less severe than those used in the main experiment suggests that loudness differences are roughly proportional to the degree of spectral tilt. The incorporation of level corrections approximating those necessary to achieve equal loudness is recommended in the fitting of programmable hearing aids.

Creating the Evidence: Lessons from Cochlear Implants

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (07) ◽  
pp. 515-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Fabry
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Research Technology ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
The Impact

This paper compares the evidence-based outcomes between cochlear implants and hearing aids during the past several decades. Despite many similarities, there are also some important differences that define the progress for the two disciplines. Perhaps the most significant distinction exists in terms of the difference between the Food and Drug Administration's treatment of hearing aids as Class I medical devices, while cochlear implants are defined as Class III devices. Another point of divergence has been the number of publications in archival, peer-reviewed journals; implant papers have been steadily increasing during the past decade, while hearing aid papers have declined during the same period. The impact of these differences on the past, present, and future of hearing aid and cochlear implant research, technology, and clinical practice is discussed.

scholarly journals Benefits of Localization and Speech Perception with Multiple Noise Sources in Listeners with a Short-Electrode Cochlear Implant

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 044-051 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
Ann Perreau ◽  
Bruce Gantz ◽  
Richard S. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Noise Sources ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Array Performance

Background: Research suggests that for individuals with significant low-frequency hearing, implantation of a short-electrode cochlear implant may provide benefits of improved speech perception abilities. Because this strategy combines acoustic and electrical hearing within the same ear while at the same time preserving low-frequency residual acoustic hearing in both ears, localization abilities may also be improved. However, very little research has focused on the localization and spatial hearing abilities of users with a short-electrode cochlear implant. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate localization abilities for listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant who continue to wear hearing aids in both ears. A secondary purpose was to document speech perception abilities using a speech-in-noise test with spatially separate noise sources. Research Design: Eleven subjects that utilized a short-electrode cochlear implant and bilateral hearing aids were tested on localization and speech perception with multiple noise locations using an eight-loudspeaker array. Performance was assessed across four listening conditions using various combinations of cochlear implant and/or hearing aid use. Results: Results for localization showed no significant difference between using bilateral hearing aids and bilateral hearing aids plus the cochlear implant. However, there was a significant difference between the bilateral hearing aid condition and the implant plus use of a contralateral hearing aid for all 11 subjects. Results for speech perception showed a significant benefit when using bilateral hearing aids plus the cochlear implant over use of the implant plus only one hearing aid. Conclusion: Combined use of both hearing aids and the cochlear implant show significant benefits for both localization and speech perception in noise for users with a short-electrode cochlear implant. These results emphasize the importance of low-frequency information in two ears for the purpose of localization and speech perception in noise.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document