G. Keidser, Heidi Silberstein Limareff, S. Simmons, Corina Gul, Zoe Hayes, C. Sawers, Bronwyn Thomas, K. Holland, Kelly Korchek
{"title":"Clinical Evaluation of Australian Hearing's Guidelines for Fitting Multiple Memory Hearing Aids","authors":"G. Keidser, Heidi Silberstein Limareff, S. Simmons, Corina Gul, Zoe Hayes, C. Sawers, Bronwyn Thomas, K. Holland, Kelly Korchek","doi":"10.1375/AUDI.2005.27.1.51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1998, guidelines for fitting multi-memory hearing aids were introduced in Australian Hearing (a government agency). The guidelines list criteria for determining multimemory candidacy and present recommended response variations around a baseline response to suit different listening environments. This study aimed at validating the clinical application of the guidelines. Forty-four subjects from three Australian Hearing centres evaluated a digital, two-memory, two-channel compression device with remote control in their everyday environments for four months. Data suggested that the original criteria for candidacy were not satisfactory. On average, candidates had a wider dynamic range across the high frequencies, were more often in the situation the alternative program was designed for, and were fitted with a greater low-frequency gain difference between programs. A revised candidacy guideline based on this finding is presented. The recommended response variations were difficult to achieve and data did not suggest any particular changes to the recommended response variations.","PeriodicalId":114768,"journal":{"name":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1375/AUDI.2005.27.1.51","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
In 1998, guidelines for fitting multi-memory hearing aids were introduced in Australian Hearing (a government agency). The guidelines list criteria for determining multimemory candidacy and present recommended response variations around a baseline response to suit different listening environments. This study aimed at validating the clinical application of the guidelines. Forty-four subjects from three Australian Hearing centres evaluated a digital, two-memory, two-channel compression device with remote control in their everyday environments for four months. Data suggested that the original criteria for candidacy were not satisfactory. On average, candidates had a wider dynamic range across the high frequencies, were more often in the situation the alternative program was designed for, and were fitted with a greater low-frequency gain difference between programs. A revised candidacy guideline based on this finding is presented. The recommended response variations were difficult to achieve and data did not suggest any particular changes to the recommended response variations.