Download PDF
Semin Hear 2001; 22(2): 103-124
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-14976
Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Consideration of Auditory Acclimatization in the Prescriptive Fitting of Hearing Aids

H. Gustav Mueller1 2 , Thomas A. Powers3
  • 1Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
  • 2Siemens Hearing Instruments
  • 3Piscataway, New Jersey
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2001 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Many hearing aid users require a period of time to adjust to new amplification or to changes in amplification; a process often termed auditory adaptation or acclimatization. This adjustment process can be related to the loudness levels of speech, changes in the spectrum of speech, environmental sounds, or other acoustic events. In many instances, a careful balance must be maintained between providing the patient with the appropriate gain and frequency response that will allow acclimatization to occur and at the same time avoiding hearing aid settings that will discourage the patient from using amplification. In this article we review several factors related to auditory acclimatization, illustrate how these factors relate to the features of today's hearing aids, and describe a software-based acclimatization procedure that can be easily implemented by dispensers in conjunction with popular prescriptive fitting procedures.

KEYWORD

Hearing aids - acclimatization - adaption - prescriptive fittings

REFERENCES

  • 1 Lindley G, Palmer C V, Durrant J, Pratt S. Audiologist versus patient-driven hearing and fitting protocols.  . 2001;  22 139-160
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Gatehouse S. Apparent auditory deprivation effects of late onset: the role of presentation level.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1989;  86(5) 2103-2106
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Palmer C V. Deprivation, acclimatization, adaptation: what do they mean for your hearing aid fittings.  Hear J . 1995;  48(5) 10,41-45
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Robinson K, Summerfield Q. Adult auditory learning and training.  Ear Hear . 1996;  51S-65S (51S-65S)
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Willott J F. Physiological plasticity in the auditory system and its possible relevance to hearing aid use, deprivation effects and acclimatization.  Ear Hear . 1996;  66S-77S (66S-77S)
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Killion M C. The K-amp hearing aid: an attempt to present high fidelity for persons with impaired hearing.  Am J Audio . 1993;  2(2) 52-74
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Walden B, Schwartz D, Williams D, Holum-Hardegen L, Crowley J. Test of the assumptions underlying comparative hearing aid evaluations.  J Speech Hear Disord . 1993;  48 264-273
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Mueller H G. Just make it audible, comfortable and loud but okay.  Hear J . 1999;  52(1) 10-17
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Cox R M. Using loudness data for hearing aid selection: the IHAFF approach.  Hear J . 1995;  48(2) 10,39-44
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Palmer C V, Valente M, Powers T A, Mueller H G. The impact of restoring normal loudness growth on speech understanding as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and input level. Paper presented at NIH/VA Hearing Aid Research and Development Conference, Bethesda, MD, September 1997
  • 11 Seewald R C, Cornelisse L E, Ramji K V, Sinclair S T, Moodie K S, Jamieson D G. A software implementation of the Desired Sensation Level (DSL[i/o]) method for fitting linear gain and wide dynamic range compression hearing instruments: version 4.1a.  User's Manual. London: The University of Western Ontario; 1997
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Mueller H G. Siemens Signia: preliminary finding of clinical trial studies. Paper presented at the Siemens International Symposium, Paris, July 2000
  • 13 Mueller H G, Palmer C V. The profile of aided loudness: a new ``PAL'' for '98.  Hear J . 1998;  51(1) 10-17
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Palmer C V, Mueller H G, Moriarty M. Profile of aided loudness: a validation procedure.  Hear J . 1999;  52(6) 34-42
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Smith N E. Loudness acclimatization to amplification. Unpublished Au.D. Capstone, Central Michigan University, 2001
  • 16 Dillon H, Byrne D, Brewer S, Katch R, Ching T, Keidser G. NAL non-linear, version 1.1  User Manual. Sydney: Australian Hearing; 1999
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Byrne D, Dirks D. Effects of acclimatization and deprivation on non-speech auditory abilities.  Ear Hear (Suppl) . 1996;  17(3) 29S-37S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Lindley G. Adaptation to loudness: implications for hearing aid fittings.  Hear J . 1999;  52(11) 50-57
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Mueller H G, Bryant M P, Brown W D, Budinger A C. Hearing aid selection for high-frequency hearing loss. In: Studebaker G, Bess F, Beck L, eds. Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report II Parkton, MD: York Press 1991: 269-286
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Watson N A, Knudsen V O. Selective amplification in hearing aids.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1940;  2 406-419
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Cox R M, Alexander G C. Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements.  Ear Hear . 1992;  13 131-141
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Gatehouse S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1992;  92 1258-1268
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Turner C W, Humes L E, Bentler R A, Cox R M. A review of past research on changes in hearing aid benefit over time.  Ear Hear (Suppl) . 1996;  17(3) 14S-28S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Bentler R A, Holte L, Turner C. An update on the acclimatization issue.  Hear J . 1999;  52(11) 44-49
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Mueller H G, Bright K E. Selection and verification of maximum output. In: Valente M, ed. Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings New York: Thieme Medical Publishers 1994: 38-63
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Bentler R A, Niebuhr D P, Getta J P, Anderson C V. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness: objective measures.  J Speech Hear Res . 1993;  36 820-831
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Barker C, Dillon H. Client preferences for compression threshold in single-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aids.  Ear Hear . 1999;  20(2) 127-139
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Mueller H G. What's the digital difference when it comes to patient benefit?.  Hear J . 2000;  53(3) 23-32
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Powers T, Burton P. DSP benefits: moving beyond traditional analog capabilities.  Hear Rev . 2000;  7(10) 62-67
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Powers T, Burton P. Combining 4-channel WDRC with 4-channel AGC-O: a new solution to an old problem. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Audiology, Chicago, March, 2000
  • 31 Mergell P. Patient preference for acclimatization levels of the DSL4.1 Unpublished internal research. Siemens Hearing Instruments, 1999
  • 32 Mueller H G. Probe-mic assessment of digital hearing aids?.  <~>Yes you can. Hear J . 2001;  51(1) 10-17
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar