Tyler Richard S, Witt Shelley A, Dunn Camille C, Perreau Ann E
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242-1078, USA.
J Am Acad Audiol. 2008 May;19(5):443-54. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.19.5.7.
Although we always want to select the best signal-processing strategy for our hearing-aid and cochlear-implant patients, no efficient and valid procedure is available. Comparisons in the office are without listening experience, and short-term take-home trials are likely influenced by the order of strategies tried.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new procedure for comparing signal-processing strategies whereby patients listen with one strategy one day and another strategy the next day. They continue this daily comparison for several weeks. We determined (1) if differences existed between strategies without prior listening experience and (2) if performance differences (or lack there of) obtained at the first listening experience are consistent with performance after two to three months of alternating between strategies on a daily basis (equal listening experience).
Eight subjects were tested pretrial with a vowel, sentence, and spondee recognition test, a localization task, and a quality rating test. They were required to listen to one of two different signal processing strategies alternating between strategies on a daily basis. After one to three months of listening, subjects returned for follow-up testing. Additionally, subjects were asked to make daily ratings and comments in a diary.
Pre-trial (no previous listening experience), a clear trend favoring one strategy was observed in four subjects. Four other subjects showed no clear advantage. Post-trial (after alternating daily between strategies), of the four subjects who showed a clear advantage for one signal processing strategy, only one subject showed that same advantage. One subject ended up with an advantage for the other strategy. Post-trial, of the four subjects who showed no advantage for a particular signal processing strategy, three did show an advantage for one strategy over the other.
Patients are willing to alternate between signal processing strategies on a daily basis for up to three months in an attempt to determine their optimal strategy. Although some patients showed superior performance with initial fittings (and some did not), the results of pre-trial comparison did not always persist after having equal listening experience. We recommend this daily alternating listening technique when there is interest in determining optimal performance among different signal processing strategies when fitting hearing aids or cochlear implants.
尽管我们一直希望为助听器和人工耳蜗植入患者选择最佳的信号处理策略,但目前尚无有效且可行的方法。在诊室进行的比较缺乏聆听体验,而短期带回家试用可能会受到所试用策略顺序的影响。
本研究旨在评估一种比较信号处理策略的新方法,即患者一天使用一种策略聆听,第二天使用另一种策略聆听。他们持续进行这种每日比较数周。我们确定了:(1)在没有事先聆听体验的情况下,不同策略之间是否存在差异;(2)首次聆听体验时获得的性能差异(或无差异情况)是否与在两到三个月内每天交替使用不同策略(同等聆听体验)后的性能一致。
八名受试者在试验前接受了元音、句子和扬扬格识别测试、定位任务以及质量评级测试。他们被要求每天交替聆听两种不同的信号处理策略之一。在聆听一到三个月后,受试者返回进行后续测试。此外,要求受试者在日记中进行每日评分和评论。
试验前(无先前聆听体验),四名受试者中观察到明显倾向于一种策略的趋势。另外四名受试者未显示出明显优势。试验后(在每天交替使用不同策略之后),在四名对一种信号处理策略显示出明显优势的受试者中,只有一名受试者仍显示出相同优势。一名受试者最终对另一种策略表现出优势。试验后,在四名对特定信号处理策略未显示出优势的受试者中,三名确实对一种策略表现出优于另一种策略的优势。
患者愿意在长达三个月的时间里每天交替使用信号处理策略,以确定其最佳策略。尽管一些患者在初次验配时表现出更优的性能(而有些患者则没有),但在获得同等聆听体验后,试验前比较的结果并不总是持续存在。当有兴趣在验配助听器或人工耳蜗时确定不同信号处理策略之间的最佳性能时,我们推荐这种每日交替聆听技术。