Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Oticon programs and algorithms

This topic is closed.

52 replies2.2k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic

used to be i/o originally. I’m aware that the paediatric formula includes more HF speech intensity for better consonant formation in early language development (@Neville would know way more about this), whereas the Adult formula is similar, but has less overall upward compression of the HF speech sounds.

The basic premise is that later acquired deafness doesn’t have the same speech development implications so the formula can be a fraction softer for greater acceptability of the sound levels.

If I’m understanding that correctly, your thoughts would apply to v5 pediatric but less so or possibly not at all to DSL v5 adult? I don’t want people to misinterpret that they should not try DSL v5 adult if other fitting formulas are not working well for them.

Yes, use Adult if you feel it gives you better speech results. Don’t hang your hat on the levels. Live via gives you a better result in my book.

Doesn’t live via map to a specified fitting formula or is -speech mapping independent of the fitting formula? I thought that most (all?) REM can’t be matched exactly to proprietary fitting formulas?

Is anyone still doing REM with only tones (thought I read somewhere here that was circa 1980s) versus speech mapping?

No, LSM is independent of proprietary fitting formula. It uses a proportionality based model imposing the ‘speech kayak’ on the residual dynamic range of the patient.

Edited

This has been discussed in a different context before, think at least in the NAL-NL3 thread. There it sounded like verifies that the prescriptive targets are being met in situ based upon fitting formula. What you’re saying is entirely different. REM then would not be useful other than for speech? Could it even be harmful in the sense of limiting the sounds one might otherwise be able to hear?

(LSM) is useful to determine if enough gain is being provided to hit the correct proportionality of the ‘speech kayak’in , by definition this means that the correct proportionality is being applied to most sounds; UNLESS, the tells the aid to turn itself down for some reason.

Edited
@Um_bongo said:

by definition this means that the correct proportionality is being applied to most sounds

Aside from , doesn’t most sounds mean just speech in whatever languages is running? Don’t many languages not have a speech banana/kayak that has been well-defined?

Some find they need to turn aids up even after programming with REM? What is the REM process missing?

Is there some advantage Aurical’s multi-language track used for REM versus English only tracks?

I think you’ve become over focused on ‘speech’. Speech is merely a collection of different intensity and pitched sounds of different duration. In this case it’s a long term average of many voices and languages.

The ‘speech kayak’ in illustrates a proportionate bit of where you need to hear, when it’s converted to output and re-inserted into your available dynamic range.

I’m not sure if there’s anything further I can say in this regard which will allow you to understand what’s happening.

In reply to @Bimodal_user

@Bimodal_user said:

@user490 , see here:

Customizing Real Ear Verification of Hearing Aid Gain and Output

@Bimodal_user, I found your link to be very interesting…many thanks!

I have been using Oticon miniRites for quite a few years and enjoyed the incremental improvements with each new model. However the improvements with the latest Oticon Intent 1 aids (from the Real 1) are a whole new evolution for me. Initially I fitted them (using single vent domes) to the VAC+ formula and found them to be so good, I stopped right there!

I found them to have virtually no background unwanted artifacts or sitting in a tunnel echo feedback and provide simply provide clearer and easier to hear speech.

I have had them six months to date. But after reading your link I enthusiastically pulled out the old PC with Genie 2 and went to work. I have re-programmed P1 to VAC+ General +speech rescue, P2 to 5a +speech rescue and P3 to Music.

Looking forward to possible improvements in speech intelligibility with the DSL 5a program over the VAC+. Will report further…

Glad you enjoyed it! I also recommend the book by the interviewee about (from 2017). He describes the differences between particular fitting algorithms.

Out of curiosity, what made you choose the VAC+ earlier? Perceived comfort?

Adding a point about choosing between vs. 5.0—I theorize that it depends on whether you will benefit from more high-frequency amplification in DSL for loudness normalization. In turn, this depends on whether you have dead regions in the high-frequency part of the cochlea. If so, you may perceive distortion and decreased speech understanding. Then NAL-NL2 could theoretically be better because it does not rely much on high-frequency amplification (over 4 kHz, if I recall correctly).

However, bear in mind that you should first get used to the new fitting formula before making any statements.

I have Xceed with proprietary DSE algorithm. Also I tried both 5 Adult and . DSL is very similar to DSE, slightly more natural sound, but less comfortable - I have pain in my ears and headache after two days of DSL using. NAL2 is too soft for me, even if I raise gain to upper hearing aid limit. I have abnormal with sensorineural loss and air-bone gap 20 db. So most of algorithms cannot calculate it.

@anon33641277 said:

I have pain in my ears and headache after two days of DSL using

(especially pediatric and earlier than 5.0 versions) are quite lound in high frequencies. There is necessary too to make sure that some channels aren’t overamplified.

First-fit is also prohibitively quiet for me. I would never buy the after that level of amplification.

@anon33641277 said:

I have abnormal audiogram with sensorineural loss and air-bone gap 20 db. So most of algorithms cannot calculate it.

Maybe new NAL-NL3 could help for that air-bone gap. However, you can try to add ⅓ to ⅔ gap to these calculations for testing.

No, it is NOT mixed loss, it is sensorineural only. Many of our doctors cannot believe it, but I know my medical history.

Related discussions