الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 70 |  |  |
| | | from | 70 | | |
Abstract
Real ear measurements or probe microphone measurements is an objective method to verify a hearing aid fitting taking into account patient’s own ear canal acoustics.
By using prescriptive formula verified with REMs at the initial hearing aid fitting allows the audiologist to ensure audibility for conversational speech, to set appropriate amounts of amplification for soft sounds, and to prevent loud sounds from becoming uncomfortable.
Many authors and studies have shown that, as compared with the hearing aids verified by REMs, the manufacturer’s first fit has considerably lower gain/output especially at the high frequencies which is important for speech understanding.
The aim of work was to compare maunfacturer’s first fit and hearing aids programmed to NAL-NL2 with real ear measurements.
Twenty adult patients were tested. Two groups of patients were formed. Each group had 10 persons. Patients were first time hearing aid users with mild to moderate SNHL. The study required two visits. At the first visit, each patient was subjected to history taking, otoscopic examination, audiometry and immittancemetry and the unaided half of the arabic APHAB . Hearing aids used in both groups were Behind The Ear (BTE) digital HA from two different manufacturers. The hearing aids of first group were fitted to the manufacturer’s first fit. The hearing aids of the second group were fitted to NAL-NL2 formula and then verified using real ear insertion gain measurments. Patients were acclimatized to their settings for four weeks. At the second visit, assessment of performance was done via Aided thresholds, the Hearing in noise test (HINT) and the aided half of Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire.
Results showed that the APHAB questionnaire benefit results of subscales EC, BN, RV and global score benefit were significantly higher (better) for REMs group compared to manufacturer’s fit in the tested HAs. Greater benefits were found for the EC, BN, RV respectively. No significant difference was found in in the AV benefit score between the two groups. No significant difference was found between the two groups in HINT in all conditions while significant difference was found between the two groups in aided free field at the 4000 HZ.
REMs are recommended for verification and should be used as a part of the fitting process.