DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

프로그램과 실이 측정을 이용한 보청기 적합의 임상적 유용성의 비교

Comparison of Clinical Usefulness of Program-Assisted and Real Ear Measurement-Assisted Hearing Aids Fitting

  • 장영수 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 이비인후과학교실) ;
  • 정혜임 (삼성서울병원 난청연구실) ;
  • 조양선 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 이비인후과학교실)
  • Chang, Young-Soo (Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sunkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Jung, Hye Im (Hearing Research Laboratory, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • Cho, Yang-Sun (Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sunkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2018.01.18
  • 심사 : 2018.04.25
  • 발행 : 2018.12.25

초록

Background and Objectives The main objectives of this study were to determine the clinical usefulness of the program-assisted and real ear measurement (REM)-assisted fitting of hearing aids. Subjects and Method Fifteen participants with moderate to moderately severe hearing loss were enrolled in this study. Objective and subjective fitting results were assessed to compare the benefits between the program-assisted fitting (using a software fitting program) and the REM-assisted fitting. Real ear insertion gain (REIG), sound-field audiometry using warble tone, and Korean Hearing in Noise Test (K-HINT) were performed as objective tests. Sound quality rating was performed as a subjective test. Results In the program fitting, 48.89% of fitting points failed to come within ${\pm}10dB$ of the REIG target. In the REM fitting, however, the percentage of failure significantly decreased to 23.33% (p=0.013). In K-HINT test, the reception threshold for speech in quiet situation significantly decreased from 50.1 dB HL with the program fitting to 44.7 dB HL after the REM fitting (p<0.001). In front noise condition, signal-to-noise ratio improved from 4.53 dB to 3.50 dB with the REM fitting without statistical significance (p=0.099). In the sound quality rating, the REM fitting ($4.27{\pm}0.56$) showed a significantly better sound quality ratings than the program fitting ($3.69{\pm}0.74$) (p=0.017). Conclusion The REM fitting showed better results in both subjective and objective measurements than the program fitting.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Gatehouse S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 1992;92(3):1258-68. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.403921
  2. Campos PD, Mondelli MF, Ferrari DV. Comparison: real and simulated ear insertion gain. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2011;77(5):555-8. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942011000500003
  3. Aazh H, Moore BC. The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2007;18(8):653-64. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.8.3
  4. Kuk F, Ludvigsen C. Verifying the output of digital nonlinear hearing instruments. Hear Rev 1999;6(11):35-6.
  5. Abrams HB, Chisolm TH, McManus M, McArdle R. Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2012;23(10):768-78. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.23.10.3
  6. Kirkwood DH. Survey: dispensers fitted more hearing aids in 2005 at higher prices. Hear J 2006;59(4):40. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000286695.28587.f5
  7. Mueller HG, Picou EM. Survey examines popularity of real-ear probemicrophone measures. Hear J 2010;63(5):27-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000373447.52956.25
  8. Aarts NL, Caffee CS. Manufacturer predicted and measured REAR values in adult hearing aid fitting: accuracy and clinical usefulness. Int J Audiol 2005;44(5):293-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020500057830
  9. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;95(2):1085-99. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.408469
  10. Moon SK, Mun HA, Jung HK, Soli SD, Lee JH, Park K. Development of sentences for Korean hearing in noise test (KHINT). Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 2005;48(6):724-8.
  11. International Telcommunication Union. Methods for objective and subjective assessment of quality. [online] 1996 Aug [cited 2018 Jan 18]. Available from: file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Downloads/T-RECP.800-199608-I!!PDF-E%20(1).pdf.
  12. Aazh H, Moore BC, Prasher D. The accuracy of matching target insertion gains with open-fit hearing aids. Am J Audiol 2012;21(2):175-80. https://doi.org/10.1044/1059-0889(2012/11-0008)
  13. Hawkins DB, Cook JA. Hearing aid software predictive gain values: how accurate are they? Hear J 2003;56(7):26-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HJ.0000292552.60032.8b

피인용 문헌

  1. Does Probe-Tube Verification of Real-Ear Hearing Aid Amplification Characteristics Improve Outcomes in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis vol.25, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216521999563
  2. Verification of Hearing Aids by Comparing Real Ear Measurements and Word Recognition Scores vol.64, pp.9, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3342/kjorl-hns.2020.01018