PMID- 29782445
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20190418
LR  - 20190418
IS  - 1538-4667 (Electronic)
IS  - 0196-0202 (Linking)
VI  - 40
IP  - 1
DP  - 2019 Jan/Feb
TI  - Comparing Two Hearing Aid Fitting Algorithms for Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users.
PG  - 98-106
LID - 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000597 [doi]
AB  - OBJECTIVES: To investigate the possible advantage of the use of a dedicated
      bimodal hearing aid fitting formula, the Adaptive Phonak Digital Bimodal (APDB), 
      compared with a frequently used standard hearing aid fitting formula, the
      NAL-NL2. We evaluated the effects of bimodal hearing aid fitting on provided
      hearing aid gain and on bimodal auditory functioning in a group of experienced
      bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users. A second aim of our study was to determine
      the effect of broadband loudness balancing on the prescribed gain of those two
      fitting formulas. DESIGN: This prospective study used a crossover design in which
      two fitting methods were compared varying in basic prescription formula (NAL-NL2 
      or APDB fitting formula). The study consisted of a three-visit crossover design
      with 3 weeks between sessions. Nineteen postlingually deafened experienced
      bimodal CI users participated in this study. Auditory functioning was evaluated
      by a speech in quiet test, a speech in noise test, and a questionnaire on
      auditory performance. RESULTS: Significant differences between the two fitting
      formulas were found for frequencies of 2000 Hz and above. For these frequencies, 
      less gain was provided by the APDB fitting formula compared with NAL-NL2. For the
      APDB fitting formula, a higher compression ratio for frequencies of 1000 Hz and
      above was found compared with the NAL-NL2 fitting formula. Loudness balancing did
      not result in large deviations from the prescribed gain by the initial fitting
      formula. Bimodal benefit was found for speech perception in quiet and for speech 
      perception in noise. No differences in auditory performance were found between
      the two fitting formulas for any of the auditory performance tests. CONCLUSIONS: 
      The results of this study show that CI users with residual hearing at the
      contralateral ear can benefit from bimodal stimulation, regardless of the fitting
      method that was applied. Although significant differences between the output and 
      compression ratio of the NAL-NL2 and the APDB fitting formula existed, no
      differences in bimodal auditory performance were observed. Therefore, NAL-NL2 or 
      the APDB fitting prescription both seem suited for bimodal fitting purposes.
      Additional loudness balancing has a marginal effect on the provided hearing aid
      output.
FAU - Vroegop, Jantien L
AU  - Vroegop JL
AD  - Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC, the
      Netherlands.
FAU - Homans, Nienke C
AU  - Homans NC
FAU - van der Schroeff, Marc P
AU  - van der Schroeff MP
FAU - Goedegebure, Andre
AU  - Goedegebure A
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PL  - United States
TA  - Ear Hear
JT  - Ear and hearing
JID - 8005585
SB  - IM
MH  - Adult
MH  - Aged
MH  - Aged, 80 and over
MH  - *Algorithms
MH  - Cochlear Implantation
MH  - *Cochlear Implants
MH  - Correction of Hearing Impairment/*methods
MH  - Cross-Over Studies
MH  - Deafness/*rehabilitation
MH  - Female
MH  - *Hearing Aids
MH  - Humans
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Prospective Studies
MH  - Prosthesis Fitting/*methods
EDAT- 2018/05/22 06:00
MHDA- 2019/04/19 06:00
CRDT- 2018/05/22 06:00
PHST- 2018/05/22 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2019/04/19 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2018/05/22 06:00 [entrez]
AID - 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000597 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Ear Hear. 2019 Jan/Feb;40(1):98-106. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000597.