Research Article

Does the Receiver Type Used in Receiver-in-Canal Hearing Aids Have an Effect on Real-Ear-to-Coupler Difference and Coupler Response for Flat Insertion Gain Values?

Abstract

Background and Aim: Real-Ear-to-Coupler Difference (RECD) is affected by the type of transducer and its coupling method. This study aimed to investigate the effect of receiver type used in Receiver-in-Canal (RIC) hearing aids on RECD and Coupler Response for Flat Insertion Gain (CORFIG) obtained by the same coupling method.
Methods: In this study, the right ears of 30 normal-hearing adults (25 men and 5 women, with a mean age of 28.13±5.62 years) were studied. We used the RIC hearing aids with two standard and power receivers. The foam of the ER-3A insert earphone was used as a coupling system in both receivers. By using the Audiogram Direct test within Phonak’s fitting software, 70 dB HL intensity was produced at different frequencies, once in the realear and again in the HA-1 coupler. By assessing the difference between real-ear and HA-1 coupler measurements, the RECD was first obtained. Then, the CORFIG was obtained at different frequencies by subtracting the Microphone Location Effect (MLE) and RECD from Real-Ear Unaided Gain (REUG).
Results: The RECD and CORFIG values obtained from the standard receiver at all frequencies were significantly different from those from the power receiver (p<0.05), where the use of the power receiver resulted in lower RECD and higher CORFIG. With the increase in frequency, the RECD increased. A small frequency changes of 50 Hz had a significant effect on RECD and CORFIG.
Conclusion: The type of receiver used in RIC hearing aids has a significant effect on the RECD and CORFIG values.

1. Bolandi Shirejini M, Nazeri A, Farahani A. [Application of Percentile Analysis in Verification of Hearing Aid Using International Speech Test Signal (ISTS): Review Article]. J Rehab Med. 2018;7(1):274-83. Persian. [DOI:10.22037/JRM.2018.110868.1584]
2. Gazia F, Galletti B, Portelli D, Alberti G, Freni F, Bruno R, et al. Real ear measurement (REM) and auditory performances with open, tulip and double closed dome in patients using hearing aids. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;277(5):1289-95. [DOI:10.1007/s00405-020-05822-1]
3. Hawkins DB, Cook JA. Hearing aid software predictive gain values How accurate are they? Hear J. 2003;56(7):26,28,32,34. [DOI:10.1097/01.HJ.0000292552.60032.8b]
4. Killion MC, Monsor EL. CORFIG: Coupler response for flat insertion gain. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, editors. Acoustical factors affecting hearing aid performance. 1st ed. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press; 1980. p. 149-68.
5. Killion MC, Revit LJ. CORFIG and GIFROC: Real ear to coupler and back. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, editors. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1993. p. 65-85.
6. Yanz J, Pisa J, Olson L. Integrated REM: real-ear measurement from a hearing aid. Hearing Review. 2007;14(5):44. Available from https://hearingreview.com/practice-building/practicemanagement/integrated-rem-real-ear-measurement-from-ahearing-aid.
7. Munro KJ, Toal S. Measuring the real-ear to coupler difference transfer function with an insert earphone and a hearing instrument: are they the same? Ear Hear. 2005;26(1):27-34. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-200502000-00003]
8. Moodie S, Pietrobon J, Rall E, Lindley G, Eiten L, Gordey D, et al. 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. 2016;27(3):264-275. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.15086]
9. Scollie S, From U, Bagatto M, Moodie S, Moodie S, Folkeard P, et al. New RECDs and a new ANSI standard: Revisiting RECD basics and applications. 2017.
10. Wolfe J, Neumann S. Hearing technology for children. In: Metz MJ, editor. Sandlin’s Textbook of Hearing Aid Amplification: Technical and Clinical Considerations. 3th ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2014. p. 427-96.
11. Bagatto M, Moodie S, Scollie S, Seewald R, Moodie S, Pumford J, et al. Clinical protocols for hearing instrument fitting in the Desired Sensation Level method. Trends Amplif. 2005;9(4):199-226. [DOI:10.1177/108471380500900404]
12. Jorgensen L, Barrett R, Jedlicka D, Messersmith J, Pratt S. Real-Ear-to-Coupler Difference: Physical and Perceptual Differences. Am J Audiol. 2022;31(4):1088-1097. [DOI:10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00264]
13. Gartrell EL, Church GT. Effect of microphone location in ITE versus BTE hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 1990;1(3):151-3.
14. Bolandi Shirejini M, Jalilvand H, Nazeri A. [Coupler Based Verification: An Overview of Proposed Solution to Solve the Problem of Mismatch between RECDs Using Same Coupling Method]. J Rehab Med. 2018;7(2):268-76. Persian. [DOI:10.22037/JRM.2018.110986.1676]
15. Adel Ghahraman M, Samimi Ardestani SH, Sadeghniiat Haghighi K. Eustachian tube dysfunction in patients with severe sleep disordered breathing: evidence from inflationdeflation test. Aud Vestib Res. 2016;25(4):215-20.
16. Pahlavan Yali K, Maarefvand M. Real-ear Unaided Gain in Wrestlers with Unilateral Cauliflower Ear. Aud Vestib Res. 2023;32(3):249-54. [DOI:10.18502/avr.v32i3.12942]
17. Bentler R, Mueller HG, Ricketts TA. Modern Hearing Aids: Verification, Outcome Measures, and Follow-up. 1st ed. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2016.
18. Carlson EV. Hearing aid transducer. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;87(6):2800. [DOI:10.1121/1.398994]
19. Lin CY, Chang YP, Ma YJ. Applying the reference values of real-ear-to-coupler-difference for deaf and hard-ofhearing children in Taiwan: Cautions and considerations. PLoS One. 2023;18(12):e0295236. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0295236]
20. Munro KJ, Hatton N. Customized acoustic transform functions and their accuracy at predicting real-ear hearing aid performance. Ear Hear. 2000;21(1):59-69. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-200002000-00009]
21. Bolandi Shirejini M, Emadi M, Farahani A, Akbarzadeh Baghban A. Effects of age, sex, ears, and weight on high frequency tympanometry 1000 Hz characteristics in neonates with normal transient evoked otoacoustic emission. Aud Vestib Res. 2018;27(2):72-9.
22. Bentler RA, Pavlovic CV. Transfer functions and correction factors used in hearing aid evaluation and research. Ear Hear. 1989;10(1):58-63. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-198902000-00010]
23. Killion MC, Revit LJ. Insertion gain repeatability versus loudspeaker location: you want me to put my loudspeaker where? Ear Hear. 1987;8(5 Suppl):68S-73S. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-198710001-00003]
Files
IssueVol 33 No 4 (2024) QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/avr.v33i4.16649
Keywords
Real-ear measurement real-ear-to-coupler difference insertion gain; hearing aid
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Bolandi M, Nazeri AR, Jalilvand H, Akbarzadeh Baghban A. Does the Receiver Type Used in Receiver-in-Canal Hearing Aids Have an Effect on Real-Ear-to-Coupler Difference and Coupler Response for Flat Insertion Gain Values?. Aud Vestib Res. 2024;33(4):313-321.