William J. Campbell M.S.
Audiologist
Benbrook Medical II
104 Technology Drive
Suite 102
Butler, Pa., 16001
724-482-0028
www.campbellaudiology.com

2011

Hearing Aid Fitting

There appears to be some confusion amongst the hearing aid fitting community concerning the best way to adjust hearing aids for a given individual.  Some suggest a very formal procedure using computer assisted microphones inserted into the ear canal in order to generate ‘real ear’ unaided/aided response curves based upon prescriptive gain target values designed to place the speech signal within the user’s residual dynamic range.  The general formulae are representative of group values and usually need to be “tweaked” on an individual basis.  The newer systems offer speech and noise mixing to potentially enhance measurement usefulness .  This sort of testing provides reliable electro-acoustic  information and quality control  measures, especially useful with infants and children where subject cooperation is minimal.  What’s interesting, however, is that results obtained with different manufacturers' systems and prescriptions show significant variability.  Which one is correct?  No one knows for sure at this point.

Because hearing speech depends on multiple complex processes including auditory threshold temporal integration, variable loudness summation control, working memory, and attention, fitting hearing aids based on audibility alone using limited signals may not be the most effective approach.

I believe in the final analysis, hearing aids are worn daily under constantly changing conditions that cannot be accurately modeled in the lab with real ear probe microphone systems. The entire auditory system (brain and neural circuitry as well as sense organ) is involved in a perceptually based statistical process.  The internal ‘number crunching’ can adapt to sensory input, allowing for the maintenance of behavioral and perceptual unity even under highly dynamic conditions.  Merely extrapolating from ear canal pressure to upstream perception appears unimpressive given the incredible complexity, let alone the large individual differences associated with most sound related issues.  The dB level measured in an ear canal via a small probe mic has marginal linkage to a given listener's final impression. A variation of the real ear probe microphone test that seems to take a more perceptual approach is called ‘speech mapping’, where, in addition to microphone measures , the patient rates speech as loud , soft or comfortable.  Results are visually displayed and used in adjusting the hearing aid gain to provide an acceptable response.

IMPORTANT

Excitation patterns from the outer ear to the middle ear, to the cochlea, to the lower brain stem ,to the higher brain stem, to the mid brain ,to the auditory cortex and finally to the associational cortical areas are not very well understood .(Sorry for the lengthy walk!!). This upward trip from the outer ear to the cortex is followed by an even more complex return trip that enables a “cognitive override” or fine tuning of our communication performances on any stage!!  The best minds involved in hearing research are baffled by the details.  For instance, auditory spatial awareness involves three related disciplines:  physical science (mathematical modeling ); perceptual psychology (subjective attributes) and cultural anthropology (social customs). Formal science is best for measuring things like hearing aid responses in ear canals, but when it comes to subjective perceptions of aural space or sound clarity,  the numbers are less than predictive for anything but the simplest descriptors.  In fact, current research in the area of human auditory perceptual coding seems to emphasize the importance of low cost speech cues that best match the statistics of the signal available for processing.  It‘s as if the brain will make the most of whatever information is available for speech communication.  A wonderfully plastic system!   

   There is no universal hearing aid fitting method that is best for everyone.  Many adults are capable of directing an interactive fitting process that is driven by personal needs, including judgments relating to pitch balance, loudness ranges , speech quality/ clarity/ understanding, ease of listening, in addition to localization and noise reduction issues.  A professional who has training in electro-acoustics and the associated  psychological correlates can customize a hearing aid fitting for the individual rather than relying upon group averages with their inherent error.   Beware of ideologues who profess to having the only way to fit a hearing aid successfully!!  Hearing is just too complicated to dismiss the relevance of your sound impressions

Bottom Line:  a hearing aid fitting will be validated by the user during daily communication activities not by magical thinking of well intentioned clinicians.  In a sense, the goal could be viewed as the absence of objectionable acoustic defects.  These defects are quite useful in perceptual based hearing aid assessment, since their unpleasant sound attributes can often be heard by individual patients and potentially reduced by the audiologist.

---

 

 Suggested Reading

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 88: 1359-1366; 1990

Trends in Amplifcation; 2003; 7(4): 117-161

Journal of Acoustical Society of America,  Vol. #119, #2, February 06, pp.  997-1004

Journal of Acoustical Society of America,  Vol. 121, #2, February 07,  pp.  1003-1016

Journal of Acoustical Society of America,  Vol. 121, #3; March 07,  pp.  1576-1587

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 121, #6, June 07, pp. 3655-3665

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 123, #1, January 2008, pp 500-506

Ear & Hearing, Vol. 29, #2, April 2008, pp 214-227

Spaces Speak, Are You Listening?;  Blesser, Barry & Salter, Linda-Ruth;  MIT Press 2007

Journal of the Academy of Audiology, Vol. 19, #10, Nov.-Dec 2008, pp. 780-798

The Hearing Journal, Volume 62, #8, August 2009, pp 10-17

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 126, #3, September 2009, pp 1312-1320

Advance for Audiologists; March-April 2010; pp 46-50

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 127, #3, March 2010, pp 1491-1505

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 127,#4, April 2010, pp 2509-2520; 2521-2528

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 21, #4, April 2010, pp 249-266

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 20, #4, April 2009, pp 272-281

ASHA Leader, July 6, 2010, pp 14-17

Hearing Review, Volume 17,#7, July 2010, pp 24-32

Feedback, Vol. 13, #3, 2002, pp 26-29

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 128, #3, September 2010, pp 1175-1190

Audiology Today; Sept./Oct. 2010; pp 53-60

Speech Guard In Oticon Agil----A White Paper- 2010

Spatial Noise Management---A Whitepaper, Oticon, 2010

Ear & Hearing, Vol. 31, #3, June 2010, pp 302-324

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 128, #4, October 2010, pp- 2112-2126

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 21, #9, October 2010, pp 568-611; Special Issue: Fourth Biennial National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research Conference

Ear & Hearing, Supplement 2011, Vol. 32, #1, pp 60S-74S

Sabine, WC., Collected Papers on Acoustics, New York: Dover; 1964

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 128, #6, December 2010, pp 3597-3613

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol., 129, #1, January 2011, pp 262-281

Hearing Review, Vol. 18, #3, March 2011, pp 18-27

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 129, #3, March 2011, pp 1490-1500

www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(10)01714-8)

Current Biology, January 25,2011

Ear & Hearing, Vol. 32, #2, April 2011, pp181-197

Acoustics Today, Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2011,pp 7-14; 15-23

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 129, #5, May 2011, pp 3153-3165

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 129, #6,June 2011, pp 4001-4013

The ASHA Leader, July 5, 2011, pp 11-13

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 130, #1,July 2011, pp 440-460

Elements of Psychophysical Theory, Jean-Claude Falmagne, Oxford University Press, 1985,

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 130, #3, September 2011, pp-1581-1596 ; 1488-1502

Audiology Today, Nov./Dec. 2011; pp-23-30

Ear & Hearing, Vol. 32, #5, October 2011; pp 543-555; pp 556-568

Eggermont, J. J. , 2008, Ear & Hearing; 29, pp 819-829

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 130, #5, November 2011; pp 2987-2998 ; 2999-3012; 3013-3027; 3028-3037

Preminger,J. & Tasell, D.  (1995) J. Speech Lng. Hrg. Research; #38 714

Quakenbush, S.R. et al. 1988, Objective Measures of Speech Quality, Prentice-Hall, pp 1-377

Ear & Hearing, Vol. 32, #6, December 2011, pp 750-757