Multi-programmable Hearing Aid

A Qualitative Examination of User Perceptions of User-Driven and App-Controlled Hearing Technologies

Purpose The aim of this study was to examine how hearing aid candidates perceive user-driven and app-controlled hearing aids and the effect these concepts have on traditional hearing health care delivery. Method Eleven adults (3 women, 8 men), recruited among 60 participants who had completed a research study evaluating an app-controlled, self-fitting hearing aid for 12 weeks, participated in a semistructured interview. Participants were over 55 years of age and had varied experience with hearing aids and smartphones. A template analysis was applied to data. Results Five themes emerged from the interviews: (a) prerequisites to the successful implementation of user-driven and app-controlled technologies, (b) benefits and advantages of user-driven and app-controlled technologies, (c) barriers to the acceptance and use of user-driven and app-controlled technologies, (d) beliefs that age is a significant factor in how well people will adopt new technology, and (e) consequences that flow from the adoption of user-driven and app-controlled technologies. Specifically, suggested benefits of the technology included fostering empowerment and providing cheaper and more discrete options, while challenges included lack of technological self-efficacy among older adults. Training and support were emphasized as necessary for successful adaptation and were suggested to be a focus of audiologic services in the future. Conclusion User perceptions of user-driven and app-controlled hearing technologies challenge the audiologic profession to provide adequate support and training for use of the technology and manufacturers to make the technology more accessible to older people.

Outcomes With a Self-Fitting Hearing Aid

Self-fitting hearing aids (SFHAs)—devices that enable self-directed threshold measurements leading to a prescribed hearing aid (HA) setting, and fine-tuning, without the need for professional support—are now commercially available. This study examined outcomes obtained with one commercial SFHA, the Companion (SoundWorld Solutions), when support was available from a clinical assistant during self-fitting. Participants consisted of 27 experienced and 25 new HA users who completed the self-fitting process, resulting in 38 user-driven and 14 clinician-driven fittings. Following 12 weeks’ experience with the SFHAs in the field, outcomes measured included the following: coupler gain and output, HA handling and management skills, speech recognition in noise, and self-reported benefit and satisfaction. In addition, the conventionally fitted HAs of 22 of the experienced participants who had user-driven fittings were evaluated. Irrespective of HA experience, the type of fitting (user- or clinician-driven) had no significant effect on coupler gain, speech recognition scores, or self-reported benefit and satisfaction. Users selected significantly higher low-frequency gain in the SFHAs when compared with the conventionally fitted HAs. The conventionally fitted HAs were rated significantly higher for benefit and satisfaction on some subscales due to negative issues with the physical design and implementation of the SFHAs, rather than who drove the fitting process. Poorer cognitive function was associated with poorer handling and management of the SFHAs. Findings suggest that with the right design and support, SFHAs may be a viable option to improve the accessibility of hearing health care.

Preferred hearing-aid frequency responses in simulated listening environments

This study was designed to determine if an adaptive strategy could be used to select frequency/gain characteristics that would be considered appropriate across a variety of listening environments. In Experiment I, the test-retest reliability of the paired comparison procedure used in Experiment II was assessed in quiet for nine subjects and in speech noise for six subjects. For both conditions, results revealed mean standard deviations of < 3 dB from 200 through 4000 Hz. In Experiment II, four subjects selected frequency/gain characteristics for five different listening environments (quiet, speech noise, quiet conference room, reverberant lecture hall, and reverberant lecture hall in noise). In general, subjects did not tend to select different frequency/gain characteristics across the five simulated environments used in this study. When differences in frequency responses were observed, they tended to be alterations in overall gain rather than changes in relative frequency response. Findings support additional evaluation in more diverse listening environments, possibly with systems that incorporate nonlinear signal processing.