J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30(05): 346-356
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16150
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Effects of Manufacturer’s Prefit and Real-Ear Fitting on the Predicted Speech Perception of Children with Severe to Profound Hearing Loss

Tian Kar Quar
*   School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Cila Umat
*   School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Yong Yee Chew
*   School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 May 2020 (online)



The use of probe microphone measures in hearing aid verification is often neglected or not fully used by practitioners. Some practitioners rely on simulated gain and output provided by manufacturer's fitting software to verify hearing aids.


This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of manufacturer’s prefit procedure in matching the prescribed real-ear targets. It also aims to study its correlated impact on the predicted speech perception in children with severe and profound hearing loss.

Research Design:

This cross-sectional experiment was carried out by measuring the output of hearing aids based on prefit versus real-ear at low-, moderate-, and high-input levels. The predicted speech perception for different hearing aid fittings was determined based on the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII).

Study sample:

Sixteen children (28 ears) aged between 4 and 7 yr, with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss took part in the study.


Two different types of hearing aids (Phonak and Unitron) were programmed based on their respective manufacturers’ Desired Sensation Levels (DSL) v5 Child procedure. The hearing aids were then verified using coupler-based measurements and individual real-ear-to-coupler differences. The prefit outputs were compared with the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs at low-, moderate-, and high-input levels. The hearing aids were then adjusted to closely match the prescribed output. The SIIs were calculated for the fittings before and after adjustment.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Sixty four percent of fittings that were based on the prefit procedure achieved the optimal fit-to-targets, with less than 5-dB RMS deviations from the DSL v5 Child targets. After adjusting the hearing aids to attempt to meet the DSL v5 Child targets, 75% of the ears tested achieved the optimal fit-to-targets. On average, hearing aid outputs generated by the manufacturer’s prefit procedure had good and reasonable agreement with the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs at low- and mid-frequencies. Nonetheless, at 4000 Hz, the hearing aid output mostly fell below the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs. This was still the case even after the hearing aid was adjusted to attempt to match with the targets. At low input level, some prefit outputs were found to be higher than the prescribed outputs. The deviations of prefit outputs from the prescribed outputs were dependent on the type of hearing aid and input levels. There was no significant difference between the SII calculated for fittings based on the prefit and adjusted fit.


Prefit procedure tends to produce outputs that were below the DSL v5 Child–prescribed outputs, with the largest mean difference at 4000 Hz. Even though the hearing aid gains were adjusted to attempt to match with the targets, the outputs were still below the targets. The limitations of hearing aids to match the DSL v5 Child targets at high-frequency region have resulted in no improvement in the children’s predicted speech perception.


  • Aarts NL, Caffee CS. 2005; Manufacturer predicted and measured REAR values in adult hearing aid fitting: accuracy and clinical usefulness. Int J Audiol 44 (05) 293-301
  • Aazh H, Moore BCJ. 2007; The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (08) 653-664
  • Alexander JM. 2013; Individual variability in recognition of frequency-lowered speech. Semin Hear 34 (02) 86-109
  • American Academy of Audiology (AAA) 2013 American Academy of Audiology Clinical Practice Guidelines on pediatric amplification. http://www.audiology.org/resources/documentlibrary/Documents/PediatricAmplificationGuidelines.pdf
  • Audioscan 2014 Verifit User’s Guide 3.10. Ontario, Canada: Etymonic Design Inc.
  • Bagatto M, Moodie S, Brown C, Malandrino A, Richert F, Clench D, Scollie S. 2016; Prescribing and verifying hearing aids applying the American Academy of Audiology pediatric amplification guideline: protocols and outcomes from the Ontario infant hearing program. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (03) 188-203
  • Bagatto M, Moodie S, Scollie S, Seewald R, Moodie S, Pumford J, Liu KP. 2005; Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the desired sensation level method. Trends Amplif 9 (04) 199-226
  • Bagatto MP. 2001; Optimizing your RECD measurements. Hear J 54 (09) 32-36
  • Bagatto MP, Seewald RC, Scollie SD, Tharpe AM. 2006; Evaluation of a probe-tube insertion technique for measuring the real-ear-to-coupler difference (RECD) in young infants. J Am Acad Audiol 17 (08) 573-581
  • Byrne D. 1983. Theoretical Prescriptive Approaches to Selecting the Gain and Frequency Response of a Hearing Aid. Monographs in Contemporary Audiology. Upper Darby, PA: Educational Services Division of Instrumentation Associates;
  • Ching TYC, Dillon H, Byrne D. 1998; Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. J Acoust Soc Am 103 (02) 1128-1140
  • Ching TYC, Dillon H, Katsch R, Byrne D. 2001; Maximizing effective audibility in hearing aid fitting. Ear Hear 22 (03) 212-224
  • Ching TYC, Johnson EE, Seeto M, Macrae JH. 2013; Hearing-aid safety: a comparison of estimated threshold shifts for gains recommended by NAL-NL2 and DSL m[i/o] prescriptions for children. Int J Audiol 52 (Suppl 2) S39-S45
  • Ching TYC, Quar TK, Johnson EE, Newall P, Sharma M. 2015; Comparing NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 in hearing aids fit to children with severe or profound hearing loss: goodness of fit-to-targets, impacts on predicted loudness and speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol 26 (03) 260-274
  • Ching TYC, Scollie SD, Dillon H, Seewald R. 2010; A cross-over, double-blind comparison of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v4.1 prescriptions for children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss. Int J Audiol 49 (Suppl 1) S4-S15
  • Davidson LS, Skinner MW. 2006; Audibility and speech perception of children using wide dynamic range compression hearing AIDS. Am J Audiol 15 (02) 141-153
  • Glista D, Hawkins M, Scollie SD. (2016) An Update on Modified Verification Approaches for Frequency Lowering Devices. AudiologyOnline.com, May.
  • Hawkins DB, Cook JA. 2003; Hearing aid software predictive gain values: how accurate are they?. Hear J 56 (07) 26-34
  • Janssen J. 2016 Are cochlear implants utilized worldwide? http://www.audiologyonline.com/ask-the-experts/are-cochlear-implants-utilized-worldwide-18721 . Retrieved March 9, 2017
  • McCreery RW, Alexander J, Brennan MA, Hoover B, Kopun J, Stelmachowicz PG. 2014; The influence of audibility on speech recognition with nonlinear frequency compression for children and adults with hearing loss. Ear Hear 35 (04) 440-447
  • McCreery RW, Bentler RA, Roush PA. 2013; Characteristics of hearing aid fittings in infants and young children. Ear Hear 34 (06) 701-710
  • McCreery RW, Walker EA, Spratford M, Bentler R, Holte L, Roush P, Oleson J, Van Buren J, Moeller MP. 2015; Longitudinal predictors of aided speech audibility in infants and children. Ear Hear 36 (Suppl 1) 24S-37S
  • McPherson B, Brouillette R. 2008. Audiology in Developing Countries: Introduction. New York, NY: Nova Science Publisher, Inc.;
  • Moodie S, Pietrobon J, Rall E, Lindley G, Eiten L, Gordey D, Davidson L, Moodie KS, Bagatto M, Haluschak MM, Folkeard P, Scollie S. 2016; Using the real-ear-to-coupler difference within the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: protocols for applying and predicting earmold RECDs. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (03) 264-275
  • Moodie KS, Seewald RC, Sinclair ST. 1994; Procedure for predicting real-ear hearing aid performance in young children. Am J Audiol 3: 23-30
  • Moore BC, Glasberg BR. 1997; A model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Aud Neurosci 3: 289-311
  • Moeller MP, Tomblin JB. OCHL Collaboration 2015; Epilogue: conclusions and implications for research and practice. Ear Hear 36 (Suppl 1) 92S-98S
  • Mueller HG. 2001; Probe microphone measurements: 20 years of progress. Trends Amplif 5 (02) 35-68
  • Mueller HG. 2005; a Fitting hearing aids to adults using prescriptive methods: an evidence-based review of effectiveness. J Am Acad Audiol 16 (07) 448-460
  • Mueller HG. 2005; b Probe-mic measures: hearing aid fitting’s most neglected element. Hear J 58 (10) 21-30
  • Mueller HG, Picou EM. 2010; Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe microphone measures. Hear J 63 (05) 27-32
  • Munro KJ, Hatton N. 2000; Customized acoustic transform functions and their accuracy at predicting real-ear hearing aid performance. Ear Hear 21 (01) 59-69
  • Pavlovic CV, Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. 1986; An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am 80 (01) 50-57
  • Quar TK, Ching TYC, Newall P, Sharma M. 2013; Evaluation of real-world preferences and performance of hearing aids fitted according to the NAL-NL1 and DSL v5 procedures in children with moderately severe to profound hearing loss. Int J Audiol 52 (05) 322-332
  • Scollie SD. 2008; Children’s speech recognition scores: the speech intelligibility index and proficiency factors for age and hearing level. Ear Hear 29 (04) 543-556
  • Scollie S, Glista D, Seto J, Dunn A, Schuett B, Hawkins M, Pourmand N, Parsa V. 2016; Fitting frequency-lowering signal processing applying the American Academy of Audiology pediatric amplification guideline: updates and protocols. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (03) 219-236
  • Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L, Moodie S, Bagatto M, Laurnagaray D, Beaulac S, Pumford J. 2005; The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 9 (04) 159-197
  • Seewald RC. 1991. Hearing aid output limiting considerations for children. In: Feigin JA, Stelmachowicz PG. Pediatric Amplification: Proceedings of the 1991 National Conference. Omaha, NE: Boy’s Town National Research Hospital Press; 19-36
  • Seewald RC, Mills J, Bagatto MP, Scollie SD, Moodie S. 2008; A comparison of manufacturer-specific prescriptive procedures for infants. Hear J 61 (11) 26-34
  • Seewald RC, Moodie KS, Sinclair ST, Scollie SD. 1999; Predictive validity of a procedure for pediatric hearing instrument fitting. Am J Audiol 8 (02) 143-152
  • Seewald RC, Ross M, Spiro MK. 1985; Selecting amplification characteristics for young hearing-impaired children. Ear Hear 6 (01) 48-53
  • Sinclair ST, Beauchaine KL, Moodie KS, Feigin JA, Seewald RC, Stelmachowicz PG. 1996; Repeatability of a real-ear-to-coupler difference measurement as a function of age. Am J Audiol 5: 52-56
  • Stiles DJ, Bentler RA, McGregor KK. 2012; The speech intelligibility index and the pure-tone average as predictors of lexical ability in children fit with hearing AIDS. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55 (03) 764-778
  • Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL, McDaniel DM, Gray GA. 1997; Age-related changes in monosyllabic word recognition performance when audibility is held constant. J Am Acad Audiol 8 (03) 150-162
  • Tomblin JB, Harrison M, Ambrose SE, Walker EA, Oleson JJ, Moeller MP. 2015; Language outcomes in young children with mild to severe hearing loss. Ear Hear 36 (Suppl 1) 76S-91S