Hearing aid feature profiles: The success of rehabilitation

  • Simon E Lansbergen, MSc Amsterdam UMC, Univ of Amsterdam, Clinical and Experimental Audiology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6941-084X
  • Wouter A Dreschler, PhD Amsterdam UMC, Univ of Amsterdam, Clinical and Experimental Audiology, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4192-6104
Keywords: PROM, hearing aid selection, hearing aid benefit, hearing aid comparison, COSI, rehabilitation benefit, hearing aid features

Abstract

We recently developed a method to objectively classify hearing aids, using technical data (e.g., compression, noise reduction, etc.) from over 3900 different devices. This yielded hearing aid subgroups called ‘modalities’, that were characterized as distinct feature profiles, independent of manufacturer or type. Our present study aims to combine these objectively defined modalities with audiologically relevant rehabilitation needs, using data including audiological diagnostic tests and two questionnaires for subjective ratings. We investigated which hearing aid modalities contribute to successful rehabilitation results, and to which extent these modalities can be associated with specific rehabilitation needs. Our results indicate that more adjustable hearing feature channels or levels do not necessarily lead to better rehabilitation results.

References

Cox, R. M., Johnson, J. A., and Xu, J. (2014). “Impact of advanced hearing aid technology on speech understanding for older listeners with mild to moderate, adult-onset, sensorineural hearing loss,” Gerontology, 60, 557-568. doi: 10.1159/000362547

Dillon, H., James, A., and Ginis, J. (1997). “Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 8, 27-43.

Dreschler, W. A., and De Ronde-Brons, I. (2016). “A profiling system for the assessment of individual needs for rehabilitation with hearing aids,” Trends Hear. 20, doi: 10.1177/2331216516673639

Kates, J. M., Arehart, K. H., Anderson, M. C., Muralimanohar, R. K. and Harvey JR, L. O. (2018). “Using objective metrics to measure hearing aid performance,” Ear Hearing, 39, 1165-1175. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000574

Kramer, S. E., Kapteyn, T. S., Festen, J. M. and Tobi, H. (1995). “Factors in subjective hearing disability,” Audiology, 34, 311-320. doi:10.3109/00206099609071948

Lansbergen, S., De Ronde-Brons, I., Boymans, M., Soede, W. and Dreschler, W. A. (2018). “Evaluation of Auditory Functioning and Rehabilitation Using Patient- Reported Outcome Measures,” Trends Hear. 22, doi: 10.1177/2331216518789022.

Lansbergen, S., and Dreschler, W. A. (2020). “Classification of Hearing Aids Into Feature Profiles Using Hierarchical Latent Class Analysis Applied to a Large Dataset of Hearing Aids,” Ear Hearing, Manuscript in press. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000877

Van den Bergh, M., Schmittmann, V. D. and Vermunt, J. K. (2017). “Building latent class trees, with an application to a study of social capital,” Methodology - Eur., 13, 13. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241/a000128

Published
2020-04-08
How to Cite
Lansbergen, S., & Dreschler, W. (2020). Hearing aid feature profiles: The success of rehabilitation. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 7, 229-236. Retrieved from https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2019-28
Section
2019/4. Novel directions in hearing-instrument technology