Research Article

The comparison of gains prescribed for digital behind-the-ear hearing aids using the manufacturer-specific and conventional prescriptive formulas

Abstract

Background and Aim: There are several prescriptive formulas for covering a variety of hearing loss, each of which applies relatively different amplifications at different frequencies. This study aims to compare the gains prescribed for digital behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids by the Desired Sensation Level Multi-Stage [Input/Output] (DSLm[I/O]), National Acoustic Laboratories-non linear2 (NAL-NL2) and manufacturer-specific formulas at different levels of input intensity.
Methods: The gain values in 12-channel BTE hearing aids prepared from four companies (Oticon, Phonak, ReSound and Siemens) were measured at three levels of input intensity (45, 65, and 85 dB SPL) and at a frequency range of 250−8000 Hz for two moderately severe flat and mild sloping to severe hearing losses by using the DSLm[I/O], NAL-NL2 and manufacturer-specific formulas in the Frye FP35 test box.
Results: There was no significant difference between the four selected hearing aids in terms of prescribed gain values using the prescriptive formulas (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: The DSLm[I/O] formula prescribes higher gain in the 12-channel BTE hearing aids from Oticon, Phonak and Siemens companies at all input intensities and frequencies for moderately severe flat and mild sloping to severe hearing losses compared to the NAL-NL2 formula and manufacturer-specific formulas (Voice Ali­gned Compression (VAC), Adaptive Phonak, Connexx Fit and audiogram+).

1. Keidser G, Dillon H, Carter L, O’Brien A. NAL-NL2 empirical adjustments. Trends Amplif. 2012;16(4):211-23. doi: 10.1177/1084713812468511
2. Dillon H. Hearing aids. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme Publishers; 2012.
3. Byrne D. Effects of bandwidth and stimulus type on most comfortable loudness levels of hearing‐impaired listeners. J AcoustSoc Am. 1986;80(2):484-93. doi: 10.1121/1.394044
4. Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear Hear. 1990;11(1):40-9. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199002000-00009
5. Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. The input/output formula: A theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J AcoustSoc Am. 1995;97(3):1854-64. doi: 10.1121/1.412980
6. McCreery R, Walker E, Spratford M, Kirby B, Oleson J, Brennan M. Stability of audiometric thresholds for children with hearing aids applying the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: Implications for safety. J Am AcadAudiol. 2016;27(3):252-263. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.15049
7. Jenstad LM. Compression for clinicians: a compass for hearing aid fittings.Int J Audiol. 2017;56(11):900-1. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1346309
8. Ching TYC, Johnson EE, Seeto M, Macrae JH. 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. 2013;52 Suppl 2(0 2):S39-45. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2013.847976
9. Johnson EE. Modern prescription theory and application: Realistic expectations for speech recognition with hearing aids. Trends Amplif. 2013;17(3):143-70. doi: 10.1177/1084713813506301
10. Johnson EE, Dillon H. A comparison of gain for adults from generic hearing aid prescriptive methods: impacts on predicted loudness, frequency bandwidth, and speech intelligibility. J Am AcadAudiol. 2011;22(7):441-59. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.22.7.5
11. Sanhueza I, Manrique R, Huarte A, de Erenchun IR, Manrique M. Bimodal Stimulation with Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid in Cases of Highly Asymmetrical Hearing Loss. J IntAdv Otol. 2016;12(1):16-22. doi: 10.5152/iao.2016.2185
12. Baer T, Moore BCJ, Kluk K. Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J AcoustSoc Am. 2002;112(3 Pt 1):1133-44. doi: 10.1121/1.1498853
13. Vickers DA, Moore BCJ, Baer T. Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J AcoustSoc Am. 2001;110(2):1164-75. doi: 10.1121/1.1381534
14. Füllgrabe C, Baer T, Stone MA, Moore BCJ. Preliminary evaluation of a method for fitting hearing aids with extended bandwidth. Int J Audiol. 2010;49(10):741-53. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2010.495084
15. Rajkumar S, Muttan S, Jaya V, Vignesh SS. Comparative analysis of different prescriptive formulae used in the evaluation of real ear insertion gain for digital hearing aids. Universal Journal of Biomedical Engineering. 2013;1(2):32-41. doi: 10.13189/ujbe.2013.010202
16. Souza PE. Effects of compression on speech acoustics, intelligibility, and sound quality. Trends Amplif. 2002;6(4):131-65. doi: 10.1177/108471380200600402
17. Henning RW, Bentler R. Compression-dependent differences in hearing aid gain between speech and nonspeech input signals. Ear Hear. 2005;26(4):409-22. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200508000-00004
Files
IssueVol 30 No 2 (2021) QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Published2021-04-08
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/avr.v30i2.6097
Keywords
National acoustic laboratories-non linear2 desired sensation level multi-stage [input/output] gain frequency intensity levels

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Shyekhaghaei S, Sameni SJ, Rahbar N. The comparison of gains prescribed for digital behind-the-ear hearing aids using the manufacturer-specific and conventional prescriptive formulas. Aud Vestib Res. 30(2):119-127.