Comparison between real ear gain in hearing aid fitted with cortical responses and the target of NAL-NL2 in pediatric with moderate to severe Sensory neural hearing Loss

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 MSc Student of Audiology, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, University of Iran, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Audiology,School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

3 PhD Student of Audiology, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, University of Iran, Tehran, Iran

4 Department of Biostatistics, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5 BSc of Audiology, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Scienses, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aims: Real ear measurement is the most prevalent way of verifying hearing aids in children and adults. Recently, auditory evoked potentials have been used to assess the accuracy of fitting in infants and young children who could not present decent behavioral feedbacks. In the present study, the real ear measurement responses of hearing aids fitted with cortical responses are compared with NAL-NL2 formula.
Materials and Methods: A total of 10 children suffering from moderate to severe hearing loss in the age group of 2 to 4 years were selected. At first, real ear measurement responses were obtained from hearing aids which were fitted with cortical responses and then they were compared with the target of NAL-NL2.
Results: Hearing aids which were fitted with cortical responses presented more gain in comparison with NAL-NL2 formula. The amount of P-value was lower than 0/005 in all frequencies and intensities except in the frequency of 500Hz in low intensity level and 4KHz in high intensity level. There was a significant difference in almost all frequencies and intensities between real ear measurement responses and the responses of NAL-NL2 formula (P-Value<0/05).
Conclusion: In the current study, real ear response of hearing aids fitted with cortical responses and NAL-NL2 formula were compared. The results showed a significant difference in almost all frequencies and three levels of intensities between real ear responses of hearing aids, which was fitted with cortical responses, and NAL-NL2 formula.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Hearing, J.C.o.I., Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics, 2007. 120(4): p. 898-921.##
  2. 2. Seewald, R.C. and S.D. Scollie, An approach for ensuring accuracy in pediatric hearing instrument fitting. Trends in amplification, 2003. 7(1): p. 29-40. ##
  3. 3. Lewis, D.E. and L.R. Eiten, Hearing instrument selection and fitting in children. VALENTE, M.; HOSFORD-DUNN, H.; ROESER, RJ Audiology Treatment. New York: Thieme, 2000: p. 149-212. ##
  4. Katz, J., et al., Handbook of clinical audiology. 1978. ##
  5. Valente, M. and M. Valente, Hearing aid fitting for adults: selection, fitting, verification, validation. Handbook of clinical audiology. 6th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 2009: p. 846-9. ##
  6. Golding, M., et al., The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) andfunctional measures in young infants. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2007. 18(2): p. 117-125. ##
  7. Ponton, C., et al., Maturation of human central auditory system activity: separating auditory evoked potentials by dipole source modeling. Clinical Neurophysiology, 2002. 113(3): p. 407-420##
  8. Billings, C.J., K.L. Tremblay, and C.W. Miller, Aided cortical auditory evoked potentials in response to changes in hearing aid gain. International Journal of Audiology, 2011. 50(7): p. 459-467. ##
  9. Keidser, G., et al., NAL-NL2 empirical adjustments. Trends in amplification, 2012. 16(4): p. 211-223.  ##

10. Ching, T.Y., et al., A comparison of NAL and DSL prescriptive methods for paediatric hearing-aid fitting: Predicted speech intelligibility and loudness. International journal of audiology, 2013. 52(sup2): p. S29-S38. ##

11. Chang, H.-W., et al., The relationship between cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) detection and estimated audibility in infants with sensorineural hearing loss. International Journal of Audiology, 2012. 51(9): p. 663-670. ##

12. Ching, T.Y., et al., A cross-over, double-blind comparison of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v4. 1 prescriptions for children with mild to moderately severe hearing loss. International Journal of Audiology, 2010. 49(sup1): p. S4-S15. ##

13. Ching, T.Y., et al., Hearing-aid safety: A comparison of estimated threshold shifts for gains recommended by NAL-NL2 and DSL m [i/o] prescriptions for children. International journal of audiology, 2013. 52(sup2): p. S39-S45. ##

14. Scollie, S., et al., Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and DSL v4. 1 prescriptions for children: Preference in real world use. International Journal of Audiology, 2010. 49(sup1): p. S49-S63. ##

The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 7, Issue 3
September and October 2018
Pages 10-17

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 03 June 2017
  • Revise Date: 09 August 2017
  • Accept Date: 05 November 2017
  • First Publish Date: 23 September 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics