Comparison of Clinical Usefulness of Program-Assisted and Real Ear Measurement-Assisted Hearing Aids Fitting.
10.3342/kjorl-hns.2018.00052
- Author:
Young Soo CHANG
1
;
Hye Im JUNG
;
Yang Sun CHO
Author Information
1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sunkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. yscho@skku.edu
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Hearing aids fitting;
Korean Hearing in Noise Test;
Real ear measurement;
Sound quality
- MeSH:
Audiometry;
Ear*;
Hearing Aids*;
Hearing Loss;
Hearing*;
Methods;
Noise;
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
- From:Korean Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
2018;61(12):663-668
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The main objectives of this study were to determine the clinical usefulness of the program-assisted and real ear measurement (REM)-assisted fitting of hearing aids. SUBJECTS AND METHOD: Fifteen participants with moderate to moderately severe hearing loss were enrolled in this study. Objective and subjective fitting results were assessed to compare the benefits between the program-assisted fitting (using a software fitting program) and the REM-assisted fitting. Real ear insertion gain (REIG), sound-field audiometry using warble tone, and Korean Hearing in Noise Test (K-HINT) were performed as objective tests. Sound quality rating was performed as a subjective test. RESULTS: In the program fitting, 48.89% of fitting points failed to come within ±10 dB of the REIG target. In the REM fitting, however, the percentage of failure significantly decreased to 23.33% (p=0.013). In K-HINT test, the reception threshold for speech in quiet situation significantly decreased from 50.1 dB HL with the program fitting to 44.7 dB HL after the REM fitting (p < 0.001). In front noise condition, signal-to-noise ratio improved from 4.53 dB to 3.50 dB with the REM fitting without statistical significance (p=0.099). In the sound quality rating, the REM fitting (4.27±0.56) showed a significantly better sound quality ratings than the program fitting (3.69±0.74) (p=0.017). CONCLUSION: The REM fitting showed better results in both subjective and objective measurements than the program fitting.
