Matthias Wesselkamp, Sabine Margolf-Hackl, J. Kiessling
{"title":"两种数字助听器配装策略的比较","authors":"Matthias Wesselkamp, Sabine Margolf-Hackl, J. Kiessling","doi":"10.1080/010503901300007119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two different hearing instrument fitting strategies were compared in the laboratory and in a field test with regard to the benefit for hearing aid users and their satisfaction with the fitting. DSL [input/output (i/o)] fittings based on hearing threshold and uncomfortable levels for the subject were evaluated vs a prescriptive fitting method based on unaided loudness scaling. Twenty-one subjects were fitted diotically with both fitting strategies implemented in a digital hearing instrument (Siemens Prisma). The patients tested both fitting strategies sequentially in a 4 + 4-week field trial using a crossover study design. Speech recognition threshold measurements, sound quality ratings and paired comparisons of sound quality were performed for all conditions (unaided, DSL[i/o] fitting and loudness-based fitting). In addition, subjective benefit and preference were assessed with questionnaires. Speech audiometry did not reveal significant differences between the two fittings. DSL[i/o] fittings showed superior results in most sound quality tests and in the selfassessment of communication abilities while the loudness-based approach was slightly preferred in noisy environments. The results seemed to be influenced by the higher gain predicted by DSL[i/o]. This study provides no evidence that effort spent on loudness scaling leads to improved fitting results.","PeriodicalId":76516,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian audiology","volume":"30 1","pages":"73 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/010503901300007119","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of two digital hearing instrument fitting strategies\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Wesselkamp, Sabine Margolf-Hackl, J. Kiessling\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/010503901300007119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Two different hearing instrument fitting strategies were compared in the laboratory and in a field test with regard to the benefit for hearing aid users and their satisfaction with the fitting. DSL [input/output (i/o)] fittings based on hearing threshold and uncomfortable levels for the subject were evaluated vs a prescriptive fitting method based on unaided loudness scaling. Twenty-one subjects were fitted diotically with both fitting strategies implemented in a digital hearing instrument (Siemens Prisma). The patients tested both fitting strategies sequentially in a 4 + 4-week field trial using a crossover study design. Speech recognition threshold measurements, sound quality ratings and paired comparisons of sound quality were performed for all conditions (unaided, DSL[i/o] fitting and loudness-based fitting). In addition, subjective benefit and preference were assessed with questionnaires. Speech audiometry did not reveal significant differences between the two fittings. DSL[i/o] fittings showed superior results in most sound quality tests and in the selfassessment of communication abilities while the loudness-based approach was slightly preferred in noisy environments. The results seemed to be influenced by the higher gain predicted by DSL[i/o]. This study provides no evidence that effort spent on loudness scaling leads to improved fitting results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":76516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian audiology\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"73 - 75\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/010503901300007119\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian audiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/010503901300007119\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian audiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/010503901300007119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of two digital hearing instrument fitting strategies
Two different hearing instrument fitting strategies were compared in the laboratory and in a field test with regard to the benefit for hearing aid users and their satisfaction with the fitting. DSL [input/output (i/o)] fittings based on hearing threshold and uncomfortable levels for the subject were evaluated vs a prescriptive fitting method based on unaided loudness scaling. Twenty-one subjects were fitted diotically with both fitting strategies implemented in a digital hearing instrument (Siemens Prisma). The patients tested both fitting strategies sequentially in a 4 + 4-week field trial using a crossover study design. Speech recognition threshold measurements, sound quality ratings and paired comparisons of sound quality were performed for all conditions (unaided, DSL[i/o] fitting and loudness-based fitting). In addition, subjective benefit and preference were assessed with questionnaires. Speech audiometry did not reveal significant differences between the two fittings. DSL[i/o] fittings showed superior results in most sound quality tests and in the selfassessment of communication abilities while the loudness-based approach was slightly preferred in noisy environments. The results seemed to be influenced by the higher gain predicted by DSL[i/o]. This study provides no evidence that effort spent on loudness scaling leads to improved fitting results.