The Design and Evaluation of a Hearing Aid with Trainable Amplification Parameters

Abstract

In everyday listening situations, aid users can train this prototype aid to provide amplification parameters that, in such situations, they prefer significantly more often than untrained parameters prescribed and adjusted in a clinic. The preference for the trained settings was not significantly affected by the training of the noise suppression strength, and was moderately but not significantly correlated with the hours of aid use during the training period. Therefore, the customization of compression parameters that is currently performed in the clinic can at least partly be performed in real life listening situations by clients who have been fitted with this trainable aid.

Evidence on Self-Fitting Hearing Aids

“…Various prescription methods result in prescription targets that differ from individually preferred gain by up to 10 dB or more, particularly at the high frequencies Keidser et al, 2005;Keidser, O'Brien, Carter, McLelland, & Yeend, 2008;Mueller, 2005;Polonenko, Scollie, & Moodie, 2010;Smeds et al, 2006;Zakis, Dillon, & McDermott, 2007). Other studies have reported that mean preferred overall gain is about 3 to 4 dB less than the prescriptive targets Horwitz & Turner, 1997;Humes, Wilson, Barlow, & Garner, 2002;Keidser, O'Brien, et al, 2008;Marriage et al, 2004;Mueller & Bentler, 2005;Polonenko et al, 2010;Zakis et al, 2007).…”

“…The evidence showed that on average, prescriptive fittings yield initial responses that are about 3 to 4 dB higher than user preferences Horwitz & Turner, 1997;Humes et al, 2002;Keidser, O'Brien, et al, 2008;Marriage et al, 2004;Mueller & Bentler, 2005;Polonenko et al, 2010;Zakis et al, 2007). Consequently, prescribed gain for both the DSL and NAL-NL methods have been reduced in their latest version (Polonenko et al, 2010).…”

“…For example, Zakis et al (2007) found that responses trained in real-life situations yielded higher compression ratios (CRs) and lower gain than NAL-NL1 prescription at typical speech levels as relatively lower gain was preferred for high than for low input levels. Depending on the frequency channel, mean trained gains were reduced by up to about 5 dB, compared to untrained gains when the inputs were at 65 dB SPL or at 80 dB SPL.…”

“…Other studies have reported that mean preferred overall gain is about 3 to 4 dB less than the prescriptive targets Horwitz & Turner, 1997;Humes, Wilson, Barlow, & Garner, 2002;Keidser, O'Brien, et al, 2008;Marriage et al, 2004;Mueller & Bentler, 2005;Polonenko et al, 2010;Zakis et al, 2007). reviewed data from five research studies conducted at the National Acoustic Laboratories and found that 49% of hearing aid users' preferred gain was within ± 3 dB of the NAL-NL1 prescribed targets for an input of 65 dB SPL.…”

“…There are four studies that showed adult hearing aid users with sensorineural hearing impairment are able to perform training tasks with relative ease and that training yields preferred responses (Dreschler et al, 2008;Keidser, Dillon, et al, 2008;Mueller et al, 2008;Zakis et al, 2007). The latter two studies included take-home trials and therefore provide information on whether hearing aid users are able to manipulate the adjustment controls in real-life situations.…”