Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:49:41.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Randomized, cross over study to assess patient preference for an acoustically modified hearing aid system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

K. MacKenzie  and
G. G. Browning
K. MacKenzie
Affiliation:
Glasgow
G. G. Browning*
Affiliation:
Glasgow
*
Professor G. G. Browning, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Glasgow, Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G31 2ER.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It seems reasonable to postulate that if a patient has a hearing impairment at particular frequencies, selective amplification at those frequencies would be an advantage. Attempts have been made in the laboratory to show that when this is done scores on various audiometric tasks will improve. Whether such laboratory benefit will be preferred by patients in their daily life is another matter. Despite a lack of knowledge on this subject, modifications are frequently made to a hearing aid system in the expectation that this will improve auditory performance and hence be preferred by the patient. The most common modifications made to an ear level aid in the British National Health Service are adjusting the tone control and venting the ear mould with the aim of emphasizing the higher frequencies.

A randomized crossover study was carried out in 83 first time hearing aid users with a mild to moderate hearing impairment to assess whether a hearing aid at the ‘H’ tone setting and with a 2 mm vented mould would be preferred by those with a more marked high frequency impairment. BE series aids were used so that any findings could be directly translated to NHS practice.

No consistent preference for the modified system was identified when patients were subgrouped according to the overall slope (0.5 to 4 kHz) of their audiogram. However, when the slope between 0.25 and 1 kHz, which corresponds to the real ear effect of these modifications, was analyzed patients with a slope at these frequencies preferred the high-tone emphasis system (p<0.005). A second but lesser predictor of preference was age, those under 66 years preferring a modified and those over 69 years preferring an unmodified system (p<0.05).

These findings need to be confirmed using different methods of altering the frequency response. What acoustical effect these achieve in a specific patient need to be confirmed using ‘in the ear’ measures before any preference they might have can be related to the configuration of their audiogram.

Keywords

Hearing aid
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 105 , Issue 6 , June 1991 , pp. 405 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

British Society of Audiology (1981) Recommended procedures for pure-tone audiometry using a manually operated instrument. British Journal of Audiology, 15: 213–216.Google Scholar
Coles, R. R. A., Priede, V. M. (1970) On the mis-diagnoses resulting from incorrect use of masking. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 84: 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdman, S. A., Sedge, R. K. (1981) Subjective comparisons of binaural versus monaural amplification. Ear and Hearing, 12: 225–229.Google Scholar
Gatheouse, S. (1990) Can you learn to love your hearing aid? Clinical Otolaryngology. in press.Google Scholar
Lybarger, S. F. (1985) Earmoulds. In: Katz, J. (ed) Handbook of Clinical Audiology, 3rd Edition, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 885–910.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, K., Browning, G. G. (1989) The real ear effect of adjusting the tone control and venting a hearing-aid system. British Journal of Audiology, 23: 93–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKenzie, K., Browning, G. G., McClymont, L. G. (1989) Relationship between earmould venting, comfort and feedback. British Journal of Audiology, 23: 335–338.Google Scholar
Swan, I. R. C., Browning, G. G., Gatehouse, S. (1986) A crossover study of side of hearing aid provision. Clinical Otolaryngology, 11: 205–208.Google Scholar
Walden, B. E., Schwartz, D. M., Williams, D. L., Holum-Hardegen, L. L., Crowley, J. M. (1983) Test of the assumptions underlying comparative hearing aid evaluations. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 48: 264–273.Google Scholar