PubMed · 7145852
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P Montandon. 1982-09-28. [Hearing aid evaluation].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7145852/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In 1996, the Danish audiological clinics and hearing aid manufacturers jointly developed a clinical procedure for testing novel hearing aids in a clinical setting. This endeavour cane about because it was being acknowledged that clinical testing of hearing aids was likely to become more prominent as a result of the more advanced signal processing schemes enabled by digital technology in particular. It was understood that future hearing aids would encompass a large variety of diverse features, and that a rigid and detailed test protocol would therefore be inappropriate. The procedure was therefore devised as a framework within which a test protocol can be developed, and constitutes the framework of good scientific and clinical practice.
In a recent tutorial for the journal, Palmer et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 1705-1721 (1998)] reviewed the literature on the potential for increases in hearing aid benefit over time (acclimatization). Their review might leave some readers with the impression that acclimatization has implications for the fitting and selection of hearing aids today. We (Turner and Bentler), along with two other researchers in the field (Humes and Cox), conducted a similar review of the literature a few years earlier [Turner et al., Ear and Hearing 17, 14S-28S (1996)] and found little evidence of a robust effect. The bulk of the existing evidence, including the most recent studies on this topic, support earlier conclusions, i.e., that there is no evidence for the existence of a strong acclimatization effect in current hearing aid use.
Hearing aids with multi-channel compression are often fitted on the basis of loudness scaling data obtained using narrow bands of noise or tones. Here, we report the development and evaluation of an alternative fitting procedure based on the use of speech signals. The parameters of the hearing aid (the gains in each channel for high and low input levels) are adjusted adaptively under computer control on the basis of the listener's responses. The goal is that speech at 85 dB SPL should be judged as 'loud', speech at 60 dB SPL should be judged as 'quiet', and speech at both levels should be judged as 'neither tinny nor boomy'. The procedure was evaluated using a two-channel compression hearing aid, the remote control of which allowed two programs to be stored. One program was based on our fitting procedure. The other was either based on the manufacturer's recommended full fitting procedure (which included loudness scaling with bands of noise), or was based on the audiogram alone, using the manufacturer's algorithm. After an acclimatization period of at least two weeks, subjects were then asked to fill in a questionnaire about their experiences with the two programs in different listening situations. The results generally indicated a preference for the program based on our adaptive fitting procedure. We also conducted laboratory measurements of speech intelligibility, in quiet and in a background of a single competing talker. These showed no clear difference between programs, although scores overall were very high. We conclude that our adaptive procedure gives very satisfactory results in everyday life. Parameter values giving good comfort also give good intelligibility. The procedure typically takes between five and 10 minutes per ear, which is quicker than most loudness scaling procedures.