Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 17012-901, Brazil.
Division of Hearing Health, Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 17012-901, Brazil.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Dec 16;18(24):13251. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182413251.
The remote microphone system (RMS) must be appropriately working when fitting it in a person with hearing loss. For this verification process, the concept of transparency is adopted. If it is not transparent, the hearing aid (HA) may not capture the user's voice and his peers appropriately, or the RMS may not have the advantage in gain needed to emphasize the speaker's voice. This study investigates the influence of the receiver's gain setting on the transparency of different brands and models of RMS and HAs. It is a retrospective chart review with 277 RMS from three distinct brands (RMA, RMB, and RMC) and HAs. There was an association of the receiver's gain setting with the variables: brand of the transmitter/receiver ( = 0.005), neck loop's receiver vs. universal and dedicated receivers ( = 0.022), and between brands of HA and transmitter/receiver ( < 0.001). RMS transmitter (odds ratio [OR = 7.9]) and the type of receiver (neckloop [OR = 3.4]; universal [OR = 0.78]) presented a higher risk of not achieving transparency in default gain, confirming and extolling the need to include electroacoustic verification in the protocol of fitting, verification, and validation of RMS and HA.
当将远程麦克风系统 (RMS) 适配于听力损失人士时,必须确保其正常运行。为此,我们采用了透明度的概念。如果不透明,助听器 (HA) 可能无法恰当地捕捉使用者的声音和他的同伴的声音,或者 RMS 可能无法获得强调说话者声音所需的增益优势。本研究调查了接收器增益设置对不同品牌和型号的 RMS 和 HA 的透明度的影响。这是一项回顾性图表审查研究,涉及来自三个不同品牌(RMA、RMB 和 RMC)的 277 个 RMS 和 HA。接收器的增益设置与以下变量相关:发射器/接收器的品牌( = 0.005)、颈带式接收器与通用接收器和专用接收器( = 0.022)以及 HA 和发射器/接收器的品牌之间( < 0.001)。RMS 发射器(优势比 [OR = 7.9])和接收器类型(颈带式 [OR = 3.4];通用式 [OR = 0.78])存在无法在默认增益下实现透明度的更高风险,这证实并强调了在 RMS 和 HA 的适配、验证和验证协议中纳入电声验证的必要性。