Assessing FM transparency, FM/HA ratio with digital aids

Auriemmo, Jane; Keenan, Denise; Passerieux, Denise; Kuk, Francis

doi:10.1097/01.hj.0000286454.74213.dd

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Table 1 , with the transmitter/receiver analysis, we observe that, on the one hand, the frequency of need for gain setting and use of default setting was similar between the RMB and RMA brands; on the other hand, RMC had a higher frequency of need for gain setting. In studies involving the verification of electroacoustic measurements, the authors cite that when transparency values are not achieved with the default setting, they should be adjusted using the receiver gain setting controls that can be activated by the transmitter or the company’s software [ 3 , 9 , 11 , 14 , 23 , 30 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The electroacoustic measuring equipment with calibrated test box and 2cc coupler (models HA-2 and HA-1) were FP35 (Fonix) and Verifity (Audiscan) to FM systems. According to Auriemmo et al [ 23 ], the transparency results from two equipment with different test boxes do not differ since they were calibrated and the process used similar speech stimuli.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fitting Assistive Technology for People with Hearing Loss: The Importance of Remote Microphone Systems′ Electroacoustic Verification

Jacob

Paccola

Bucuvic

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The remote microphone system (RMS) must be appropriately working when fitting it in a person with hearing loss. For this verification process, the concept of transparency is adopted. If it is not transparent, the hearing aid (HA) may not capture the user’s voice and his peers appropriately, or the RMS may not have the advantage in gain needed to emphasize the speaker’s voice. This study investigates the influence of the receiver’s gain setting on the transparency of different brands and models of RMS and HAs. It is a retrospective chart review with 277 RMS from three distinct brands (RMA, RMB, and RMC) and HAs. There was an association of the receiver’s gain setting with the variables: brand of the transmitter/receiver (p = 0.005), neck loop’s receiver vs. universal and dedicated receivers (p = 0.022), and between brands of HA and transmitter/receiver (p < 0.001). RMS transmitter (odds ratio [OR = 7.9]) and the type of receiver (neckloop [OR = 3.4]; universal [OR = 0.78]) presented a higher risk of not achieving transparency in default gain, confirming and extolling the need to include electroacoustic verification in the protocol of fitting, verification, and validation of RMS and HA.

show abstract