The effects of receiver placement on probe microphone, performance, and subjective measures with open canal hearing instruments

Lynzee N. Alworth, Patrick Plyler, Monika Bertges Reber, Patti Johnstone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Open canal hearing instruments differ in method of sound delivery to the ear canal, distance between the microphone and the receiver, and physical size of the devices. Moreover, RITA (receiver in the aid) and RITE (receiver in the ear) hearing instruments may also differ in terms of retention and comfort as well as ease of use and care for certain individuals. What remains unclear, however, is if any or all of the abovementioned factors contribute to hearing aid outcome. Purpose: To determine the effect of receiver location on performance and/or preference of listeners using open canal hearing instruments. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeatedmeasures design. Study Sample: Twenty-five adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed two six-week trial periods for each device type. Probe microphone, objective, and subjective measures (quiet, noise) were conducted unaided and aided at the end of each trial period. Results: Occlusion effect results were not significantly different between the RITA and RITE instruments; however, frequency range was extended in the RITE instruments, resulting in significantly greater maximum gain for the RITE instruments than the RITA instruments at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objective performance in quiet or in noise was unaffected by receiver location. Subjective measures revealed significantly greater satisfaction ratings for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Similarly, preference in quiet and overall preference were significantly greater for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Conclusions: Although no occlusion differences were noted between instruments, the RITE did demonstrate a significant difference in reserve gain before feedback at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objectively; no positive benefit was noted between unaided and aided conditions on speech recognition tests. These results suggest that such testing may not be sensitive enough to determine aided benefit with open canal instruments. However, the subjective measures (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit [APHAB] and subjective ratings) did indicate aided benefit for both instruments when compared to unaided. This further suggests the clinical importance of subjective measures as away to measure aided benefit of open-fit devices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)249-266
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Audiology
Volume21
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2010

Fingerprint

Hearing
Ear
Hearing Aids
Equipment and Supplies
Noise
Ear Canal
Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Research Design

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

The effects of receiver placement on probe microphone, performance, and subjective measures with open canal hearing instruments. / Alworth, Lynzee N.; Plyler, Patrick; Reber, Monika Bertges; Johnstone, Patti.

In: Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 21, No. 4, 01.04.2010, p. 249-266.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{52d2f59d44d640efadcd49d5a78c31f0,
title = "The effects of receiver placement on probe microphone, performance, and subjective measures with open canal hearing instruments",
abstract = "Background: Open canal hearing instruments differ in method of sound delivery to the ear canal, distance between the microphone and the receiver, and physical size of the devices. Moreover, RITA (receiver in the aid) and RITE (receiver in the ear) hearing instruments may also differ in terms of retention and comfort as well as ease of use and care for certain individuals. What remains unclear, however, is if any or all of the abovementioned factors contribute to hearing aid outcome. Purpose: To determine the effect of receiver location on performance and/or preference of listeners using open canal hearing instruments. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeatedmeasures design. Study Sample: Twenty-five adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed two six-week trial periods for each device type. Probe microphone, objective, and subjective measures (quiet, noise) were conducted unaided and aided at the end of each trial period. Results: Occlusion effect results were not significantly different between the RITA and RITE instruments; however, frequency range was extended in the RITE instruments, resulting in significantly greater maximum gain for the RITE instruments than the RITA instruments at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objective performance in quiet or in noise was unaffected by receiver location. Subjective measures revealed significantly greater satisfaction ratings for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Similarly, preference in quiet and overall preference were significantly greater for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Conclusions: Although no occlusion differences were noted between instruments, the RITE did demonstrate a significant difference in reserve gain before feedback at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objectively; no positive benefit was noted between unaided and aided conditions on speech recognition tests. These results suggest that such testing may not be sensitive enough to determine aided benefit with open canal instruments. However, the subjective measures (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit [APHAB] and subjective ratings) did indicate aided benefit for both instruments when compared to unaided. This further suggests the clinical importance of subjective measures as away to measure aided benefit of open-fit devices.",
author = "Alworth, {Lynzee N.} and Patrick Plyler and Reber, {Monika Bertges} and Patti Johnstone",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3766/jaaa.21.4.4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "249--266",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Audiology",
issn = "1050-0545",
publisher = "American Academy of Audiology",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effects of receiver placement on probe microphone, performance, and subjective measures with open canal hearing instruments

AU - Alworth, Lynzee N.

AU - Plyler, Patrick

AU - Reber, Monika Bertges

AU - Johnstone, Patti

PY - 2010/4/1

Y1 - 2010/4/1

N2 - Background: Open canal hearing instruments differ in method of sound delivery to the ear canal, distance between the microphone and the receiver, and physical size of the devices. Moreover, RITA (receiver in the aid) and RITE (receiver in the ear) hearing instruments may also differ in terms of retention and comfort as well as ease of use and care for certain individuals. What remains unclear, however, is if any or all of the abovementioned factors contribute to hearing aid outcome. Purpose: To determine the effect of receiver location on performance and/or preference of listeners using open canal hearing instruments. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeatedmeasures design. Study Sample: Twenty-five adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed two six-week trial periods for each device type. Probe microphone, objective, and subjective measures (quiet, noise) were conducted unaided and aided at the end of each trial period. Results: Occlusion effect results were not significantly different between the RITA and RITE instruments; however, frequency range was extended in the RITE instruments, resulting in significantly greater maximum gain for the RITE instruments than the RITA instruments at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objective performance in quiet or in noise was unaffected by receiver location. Subjective measures revealed significantly greater satisfaction ratings for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Similarly, preference in quiet and overall preference were significantly greater for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Conclusions: Although no occlusion differences were noted between instruments, the RITE did demonstrate a significant difference in reserve gain before feedback at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objectively; no positive benefit was noted between unaided and aided conditions on speech recognition tests. These results suggest that such testing may not be sensitive enough to determine aided benefit with open canal instruments. However, the subjective measures (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit [APHAB] and subjective ratings) did indicate aided benefit for both instruments when compared to unaided. This further suggests the clinical importance of subjective measures as away to measure aided benefit of open-fit devices.

AB - Background: Open canal hearing instruments differ in method of sound delivery to the ear canal, distance between the microphone and the receiver, and physical size of the devices. Moreover, RITA (receiver in the aid) and RITE (receiver in the ear) hearing instruments may also differ in terms of retention and comfort as well as ease of use and care for certain individuals. What remains unclear, however, is if any or all of the abovementioned factors contribute to hearing aid outcome. Purpose: To determine the effect of receiver location on performance and/or preference of listeners using open canal hearing instruments. Research Design: An experimental study in which subjects were exposed to a repeatedmeasures design. Study Sample: Twenty-five adult listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss (mean age 67 yr). Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed two six-week trial periods for each device type. Probe microphone, objective, and subjective measures (quiet, noise) were conducted unaided and aided at the end of each trial period. Results: Occlusion effect results were not significantly different between the RITA and RITE instruments; however, frequency range was extended in the RITE instruments, resulting in significantly greater maximum gain for the RITE instruments than the RITA instruments at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objective performance in quiet or in noise was unaffected by receiver location. Subjective measures revealed significantly greater satisfaction ratings for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Similarly, preference in quiet and overall preference were significantly greater for the RITE than for the RITA instruments. Conclusions: Although no occlusion differences were noted between instruments, the RITE did demonstrate a significant difference in reserve gain before feedback at 4000 and 6000 Hz. Objectively; no positive benefit was noted between unaided and aided conditions on speech recognition tests. These results suggest that such testing may not be sensitive enough to determine aided benefit with open canal instruments. However, the subjective measures (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit [APHAB] and subjective ratings) did indicate aided benefit for both instruments when compared to unaided. This further suggests the clinical importance of subjective measures as away to measure aided benefit of open-fit devices.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77950799791&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77950799791&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3766/jaaa.21.4.4

DO - 10.3766/jaaa.21.4.4

M3 - Article

C2 - 20388451

AN - SCOPUS:77950799791

VL - 21

SP - 249

EP - 266

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

SN - 1050-0545

IS - 4

ER -