» Articles » PMID: 32693613

Common Configurations of Real-Ear Aided Response Targets Prescribed by NAL-NL2 for Older Adults With Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss

Overview
Journal Am J Audiol
Date 2020 Jul 23
PMID 32693613
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose This study investigates common real-ear aided response (REAR) configurations prescribed by the NAL-NL2 algorithm for older adults with hearing loss. Method A data set that is representative of the older adult U.S. population with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss was constructed from the audiometric data of 934 adults (aged 55-85 years) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey years 1999-2012. Two clustering approaches were implemented to generate common REAR configurations for eight frequencies (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 kHz) at three input levels (55, 65, and 75 dB SPL). (a) In the REAR-based clustering approach, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey audiograms were first converted to REAR targets and then clustered to generate common REAR configurations. (b) In the audiogram-based clustering approach, the audiograms were first clustered into common hearing loss profiles and then converted to REAR configurations. The trade-off between the number of available REAR configurations and the percentage of the U.S. population whose hearing loss could be fit by at least one of them (i.e., percent coverage) was evaluated. Hearing loss fit was defined as less than ± 5-dB difference between an individual's REAR targets and those of the clustered REAR configuration. Results Percent coverage increases with the number of available REAR configurations, with four configurations resulting in 75% population coverage. Overall, REAR-based clustering yielded 5 percentage points better coverage on average compared to audiogram-based clustering. Conclusions The common REAR configurations can be used for programming the gain frequency responses in preconfigured over-the-counter hearing aids and provide clinically appropriate amplification settings for older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss.

Citing Articles

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Non-Self-Fitting Presets Compared to Prescription Hearing Aid Fittings and a Personal Sound Amplification Product.

Venkitakrishnan S, Urbanski D, Wu Y Am J Audiol. 2023; :1-24.

PMID: 37956699 PMC: 11001427. DOI: 10.1044/2023_AJA-23-00121.


Personalizing over-the-counter hearing aids using pairwise comparisons.

Vyas D, Brummet R, Anwar Y, Jensen J, Jorgensen E, Wu Y Smart Health (Amst). 2023; 23.

PMID: 37397910 PMC: 10312409. DOI: 10.1016/j.smhl.2021.100231.


Self-Adjustment of Hearing Aid Amplification for Lower Speech Levels: Independent Ratings, Paired Comparisons, and Speech Recognition.

Perry T, Nelson P Am J Audiol. 2022; 31(2):305-321.

PMID: 35316099 PMC: 9524848. DOI: 10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00164.

References
1.
Nelson P, Perry T, Gregan M, VanTasell D . Self-Adjusted Amplification Parameters Produce Large Between-Subject Variability and Preserve Speech Intelligibility. Trends Hear. 2018; 22:2331216518798264. PMC: 6130080. DOI: 10.1177/2331216518798264. View

2.
Lin F, Thorpe R, Gordon-Salant S, Ferrucci L . Hearing loss prevalence and risk factors among older adults in the United States. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011; 66(5):582-90. PMC: 3074958. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glr002. View

3.
Mackersie C, Boothroyd A, Lithgow A . A "Goldilocks" Approach to Hearing Aid Self-Fitting: Ear-Canal Output and Speech Intelligibility Index. Ear Hear. 2018; 40(1):107-115. PMC: 6289875. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000617. View

4.
Chien W, Lin F . Prevalence of hearing aid use among older adults in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(3):292-3. PMC: 3564585. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1408. View

5.
Cheng C, McPherson B . Over-the-counter hearing aids: electroacoustic characteristics and possible target client groups. Audiology. 2000; 39(2):110-6. DOI: 10.3109/00206090009073062. View