A comparison of conventional and in-situ audiometry on participants with varying levels of sensorineural hearing loss.

BACKGROUND: In-situ audiometry is a hearing aid feature that enables the measurement of hearing threshold levels through the hearing instrument using the built-in sound generator and the hearing aid receiver. This feature can be used in hearing aid fittings instead of conventional pure-tone audiometry (PTA), particularly in places where no standard audiometric equipment is available. Differences between conventional and in-situ thresholds are described and discussed for some particular hearing aids. No previous investigation has measured and compared these differences for a number of current hearing aid models by various manufacturers across a wide range of hearing losses. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to perform a model-based comparison of conventionally and in-situ measured hearing thresholds. Data were collected for a range of hearing aid devices to study and generalize the effects that may occur under clinical conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN: Research design was an experimental and regression study. STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 30 adults with sensorineural hearing loss served as test persons. They were assigned to three subgroups of 10 subjects with mild (M), moderate to severe (MS), and severe (S) sensorineural hearing loss. INTERVENTION: All 30 test persons underwent both conventional PTA and in-situ audiometry with four hearing aid models by various manufacturers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The differences between conventionally and in-situ measured hearing threshold levels were calculated and evaluated by an exploratory data analysis followed by a sophisticated statistical modeling process. RESULTS: At 500 and 1500 Hz, almost all threshold differences (conventional PTA minus in-situ data) were negative, i.e., in the low to mid frequencies, hearing loss was overestimated by most devices relative to PTA. At 4000 Hz, the majority of differences (7 of 12) were positive, i.e., in the frequency range above 1500 Hz, hearing loss was frequently underestimated. As hearing loss increased (M→MS→S), the effect of the underestimation decreased. At 500 and 1500 Hz, Resound devices showed the smallest threshold deviations, followed by Phonak, Starkey, and Oticon instruments. At 4000 Hz, this observed pattern partly disappeared and Starkey and Oticon devices showed a reversed effect with increasing hearing loss (M→MS→S). Because of high standard errors for the estimates, only a few explicit rankings of the devices could be established based on significant threshold differences (5% level). CONCLUSIONS: Differences between conventional PTA and in-situ threshold levels may be attributed to (1) frequency, (2) device/hearing loss, and (3) calibration/manufacturer effects. Frequency effects primarily resulting in an overestimation of hearing loss by in-situ audiometry in the low and mid frequencies are mainly due to sound drain-off through vents and leaks. Device/hearing loss effects may be due to leakage as well as boundary effects because in-situ audiometry is confined to a limited measurement range. Finally, different calibration approaches may result in different offset levels between PTA and in-situ audiometry calibration. In some cases, the observed threshold differences of up to 10-15 dB may translate to varied hearing aid fittings for the same user depending on how hearing threshold levels were measured.

Reliability of real ear insertion gain in behind-the-ear hearing aids with different coupling systems to the ear canal.

OBJECTIVE: The last decade has offered a multitude of instant fit coupling systems to be fitted with behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids. The impact of these designs on the reliability of real ear measurements (REMs) has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to obtain REM reliability data for instant fit coupling systems. DESIGN: REM reliability data was obtained for four different instant-fit coupling systems and for standard size 13 tubing and custom earmolds. REMs were performed for all five coupling systems two times and by two examiners. STUDY SAMPLE: Ten normal-hearing individuals (20 ears) served as participants. RESULTS: The REM test-retest reliability is high for the four instant fit coupling systems as well as for the custom earmolds. The REM inter-examiner reliability is high for three of the four instant fit coupling systems. CONCLUSIONS: Carrying out REMs with instant fit coupling systems appears to be fundamentally no different than performing REMs with conventional hearing aids. For either, care should be taken in probe tube placement in terms of insertion depth and maintaining the probe tube placement, and other best practices regarding test environment and test setup should be observed.

The occlusion effect in unilateral versus bilateral hearing aids.

The benefit of bilateral hearing aids is well documented, but many hearing-aid users still wear only one aid. It is plausible that the occlusion effect is part of the reason for some hearing-aid users not wearing both hearing aids. In this study we quantified the subjective occlusion effect by asking ten experienced users of bilateral hearing aids and a reference group of ten normal-hearing individuals to rate the naturalness of their own voice while reading a text sample aloud. The subjective occlusion effect was evaluated in the unilateral versus bilateral condition for a variety of vent designs in earmolds and in a custom hearing aid. The subjective occlusion effect was significantly higher for bilateral hearing aids with all vent designs with the exception of a non-occluding eartip option. The subjective occlusion effect was reduced with the more open vent designs in both the unilateral and bilateral conditions. Assuming that the occlusion effect is a barrier to bilateral hearing aid use, these results indicate that open-hearing-aid fittings can help promote the use of two aids.

Occlusion effect of earmolds with different venting systems.

In this study the occlusion effect was quantified for five types of earmolds with different venting. Nine normal-hearing listeners and ten experienced hearing aid users were provided with conventional earmolds with 1.6 and 2.4 mm circular venting, shell type earmolds with a novel vent design with equivalent cross-sectional vent areas, and nonoccluding soft silicone eartips of a commercial hearing instrument. For all venting systems, the occlusion effect was measured using a probe microphone system and subjectively rated in test and retest sessions. The results for both normal-hearing subjects and hearing aid users showed that the novel vents caused significantly less occlusion than the traditional vents. Occlusion effect associated with the soft silicone eartip was comparable to the nonoccluded ear. Test-retest reproducibility was higher for the subjective occlusion rating than for the objectively measured occlusion. Perceived occlusion revealed a closer relationship to measured occlusion in the ear in which the measured occlusion effect was higher ("high OE" ear) than in the "low OE" ear. As our results suggest that subjective judgment of occlusion is directly related to the acoustic mass of the air column in the vent, the amount of perceived occlusion may be predicted by the vent dimensions.