Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(03): 157-163
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722947
Research Article

Accuracy of an Automated Hearing Aid Fitting Using Real Ear Measures Embedded in a Manufacturer Fitting Software

Alison Brockmeyer
1   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Division of Adult Audiology, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Adam Voss
1   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Division of Adult Audiology, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Cameron C. Wick
1   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Division of Adult Audiology, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Nedim Durakovic
1   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Division of Adult Audiology, St. Louis, Missouri
,
Michael Valente
1   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Division of Adult Audiology, St. Louis, Missouri
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Hearing aid fitting guidelines recommend real ear measures (REM) to verify hearing aid performance. Unfortunately, approximately 70 to 80% of clinicians do not use REM, but instead download manufacturer first-fit. Studies report differences in performance between first-fit and programmed-fit with greatest differences in the higher frequencies. Recently, hearing aid and real ear analyzer (REA) manufacturers allow REA communication with hearing aid software feature to automatically program hearing aids to target. Little research is available reporting the accuracy of this feature.

Purpose The aim of the study is to examine whether differences exist at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL between two ReSound first-fit formulae (Audiogram+ and NAL-NL2) using ReSound AutoREM and Aurical NAL-NL2

Research Design The study design is of repeated measure type.

Study Sample The study sample includes 48 ears.

Data Collection and Analysis For the two fitting formulae, AutoREM real ear insertion gain (REIG) was measured at 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL and compared with measures from Aurical NAL-NL2.

Results Mean AutoREM REIG for ReSound NAL-NL2 was 3 to 8 dB below Aurical NAL-NL2 for 50 dB SPL, within 1 to 3 dB for 65 dB SPL and 1 to 5 dB above for 80 dB SPL. Mean AutoREM REIG for Audiogram + was 1 to 12 dB below Aurical NAL-NL2 for 50 dB SPL, within 2 to 5 dB for 65 dB SPL and 1 to 7 dB above NAL-NL2 for 80 dB SPL.

Conclusion Relative to the Aurical NAL-NL2, AutoREM REIG50 for Audiogram + and ReSound NAL-NL2 was lower. Relative to the Aurical NAL-NL2, AutoREM REIG65 for Audiogram + was higher at 1,000 Hz and lower at 4,000 to 6,000 Hz and for ReSound NAL-NL2 it was lower at 500 Hz and 4,000 Hz and higher at 3,000 Hz. Relative to the Aurical NAL-NL2, AutoREM REIG80 for Audiogram + was higher at 500 to 3,000 Hz and 6,000 Hz and ReSound NAL-NL2 was higher at 500 to 6,000 Hz. Because of wide intersubject variability clinicians should continue to use REM as a “check and balance” when using AutoREM.

Keywords

AutoREM - real ear insertion gain - real ear measures


Publication History

Received: 08 May 2020

Accepted: 28 August 2020

Article published online:
01 June 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 ASHA Ad Hoc Committee on Hearing Aid Selection and Fitting. Guidelines for hearing aid fitting for adults. Am J Audiol 1998; 7 (01) 5-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 American Academy of Audiology. Guidelines for the audiologic management of adult hearing impairment. 2006 . Accessed January 12, 2021 at: http://audiology.org/resources/documentlibrary/documents/haguidelines.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 3 British Society of Audiology. Guidance on the use of real-ear measurements to verify the fitting of digital signal processing hearing aids. 2007 . Accessed January 12, 2021 at: http://www.thebsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/REM.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Consumer Reports. Hear well in a noisy world: hearing aids, hearing protection & more. Consum Rep 2009; 74 (07) 32-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mueller G, Picou E. Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hear J 2010; 63 (05) 27-32
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Keidser G, Dillon H, Carter L, O'Brien A. NAL-NL2 empirical adjustments. Trends Amplif 2012; 16 (04) 211-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Boymans M, Dreschler WA. Audiologist-driven versus patient-driven fine tuning of hearing instruments. Trends Amplif 2012; 16 (01) 49-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Leavitt R, Flexer C. The importance of audibility in successful amplification of hearing loss. Hear Rev 2012; 19 (13) 20-23
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Abrams HB, Chisolm TH, McManus M, McArdle R. Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (10) 768-778
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sanders J, Stoody T, Weber J, Mueller HG. Manufacturers' NAL-NL2 fittings fail real-ear verification. Hear Rev 2015; 21 (03) 24-32
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Munro KJ, Puri R, Bird J, Smith M. Using probe-microphone measurements to improve the match to target gain and frequency response slope, as a function of earmould style, frequency, and input level. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (04) 215-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116 (4 Pt 1): 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 1986; 7 (04) 257-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (02) 176-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Valente M, Oeding K, Brockmeyer A, Smith S, Kallogjeri D. Differences in word and phoneme in quiet, sentence recognition in noise and subjective outcomes between manufacturer first fit and hearing aids programmed to NAL-NL2. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29: 706-721
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Baumann J, Powers T, Branda E. Validity, reliability and efficiency if the Signia autofit procedure. Hear Rev 2018; 25 (09) 26-30
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Denys S, Matthias L, Francart T, Wouters J. A preliminary investigation into hearing aid fitting based on automated real-ear measurements integrated in the fitting software: test–retest reliability, matching accuracy and perceptual outcomes. Int J Audiol 2018; 58 (02) 1-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Folkeard P, Pumford J, Abbasalipour P, Willis N, Scollie S. A comparison of automated real-ear and traditional hearing aid fitting methods. Hear Rev 2018; 25 (11) 28-32
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Mueller G, Ricketts T. 20Q: Hearing aid verification-will AutoREM fit move the sticks?. 2018 . Accessed January 20, 2021 at: www.audiologyonline.com
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Allen JB, Hall JL, Jeng PS. Loudness growth in 1/2-octave bands (LGOB)—a procedure for the assessment of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88 (02) 745-753
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Holube I, Fredelake S, Vlaming M, Kollmeier B. Development and analysis of the international speech test signal (ISTS). Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (12) 891-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Koehler E, Kulkarni S. Fast and easy fitting and verification with integrated real-ear measurement. Hear Rev 2014; 21 (10) 36-40
    Google Scholar