Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Best-practice guidelines recommend the use of hearing aid verification in children; however this is not always performed. Automated hearing aid verification has been reported to be more accurate and efficient than manual verification in adults, but it is not known if this transfers to the paediatric population.
DESIGN: A within-group design compared manual and automated hearing aid verification on four measures; fitting accuracy, prescription targets, completion time, and the speech intelligibility index.
SAMPLE: 20 paediatric patient hearing aid profiles (M=8.25 years) with unilateral or bilateral hearing aids.
RESULTS: A Wilcoxon-signed rank test indicated manual verification achieved a significantly closer match to target at 0.5 kHz, by an average of 1 dB. There were no significant differences at any other frequency. Across 80 comparisons (four frequencies measured in 20 listeners), 82.5% of automated verifications were identical to, or within 1dB of, manual verifications. A paired-samples t-test confirmed automated verification to be an average of 91.9 seconds faster than manual verification.
CONCLUSION: Automated verification was able to provide an accurate match to target within recommended tolerances for hearing aid fittings and was significantly quicker than manual verification. These data suggest that automated verification of hearing aids could play a role in paediatric audiological management.
DESIGN: A within-group design compared manual and automated hearing aid verification on four measures; fitting accuracy, prescription targets, completion time, and the speech intelligibility index.
SAMPLE: 20 paediatric patient hearing aid profiles (M=8.25 years) with unilateral or bilateral hearing aids.
RESULTS: A Wilcoxon-signed rank test indicated manual verification achieved a significantly closer match to target at 0.5 kHz, by an average of 1 dB. There were no significant differences at any other frequency. Across 80 comparisons (four frequencies measured in 20 listeners), 82.5% of automated verifications were identical to, or within 1dB of, manual verifications. A paired-samples t-test confirmed automated verification to be an average of 91.9 seconds faster than manual verification.
CONCLUSION: Automated verification was able to provide an accurate match to target within recommended tolerances for hearing aid fittings and was significantly quicker than manual verification. These data suggest that automated verification of hearing aids could play a role in paediatric audiological management.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | International Journal of Audiology |
| Early online date | 9 Nov 2023 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 9 Nov 2023 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'A Comparison of Automated Verification Using Paediatric Hearing Aids'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Projects
-
Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness (ManCAD)
Munro, K. (PI), Millman, R. (PI), Lamb, W. (Support team), Dawes, P. (PI), Plack, C. (PI), Stone, M. (PI), Kluk-De Kort, K. (PI), Moore, D. (PI), Morton, C. (PI), Prendergast, G. (PI), Couth, S. (PI), Schlittenlacher, J. (PI), Chilton, H. (PI), Visram, A. (Researcher), Dillon, H. (PI), Guest, H. (Researcher), Heinrich, A. (PI), Jackson, I. (Researcher), Littlejohn, J. (Researcher), Jones, L. (PI), Lough, M. (Researcher), Morgan, R. (Researcher), Perugia, E. (Researcher), Roughley, A. (Researcher), Whiston, H. (Researcher), Wright, C. (Support team), Saunders, G. (PI), Kelly, C. (PI), Cross, H. (Researcher), Loughran, M. (Researcher) & Hoseinabadi, R. (PI)
Project: Research