For Phonak Virto R, my audiologist used the APD3.0 global tuning setting and then to ? Was that an oversight I should have fixed at a follow-up or does this not matter? Does it mean any new programs created will be based upon APD3.0 and not NAL-NL2 and does that matter if the new program is made in Target or MyPhonak?
Side question, but what is the best way to shift the streaming volume down, change it permanently in Target? Sometimes it is fine and sometimes it can be loud even on the lowest volume setting on the streaming device.
Not exactly sure what you’re asking but this may or may not help you…
Integration with ADP 3.0 in Phonak Target
• TargetMatch 2.0, built into Phonak Target (version 9.0 or higher), allows REM workflows including probe tube calibration, unaided and occluded gain measurements, and matching aided responses to prescriptive targets.
• ADP 3.0, Phonak’s proprietary fitting formula, is fully compatible with TargetMatch. You can verify and fine-tune fittings using REM data while applying ADP 3.0 as your fitting rationale com.au.
• Supported REM systems include:• Auditdata Primus Pro (v4.1.0+)
• Interacoustics Affinity 2.0 and Compact (v2.19+)
• Signia Unity 3 (v5.9.0+)
• Noah software (v4.4+) is required to enable communication between Phonak Target and REM systems via the IMC2 protocol.
My understanding is that you would typically use the same global fitting prescription you plan to use for . In theory, that should require fewer adjustments during REM. You can use any global fitting and then do REM so the result is a fit from another fitting prescription, but why do that?
How does Target manage when there’s a mismatch? If I make a new program now, is it based off APD3.0 (from the global setting) or (from REM)? Does Target adjust other hearing aid features because APD3.0 is set in global versus NAL-NL2? For example, compression speed might work differently in APD3.0 even though that is not directly configurable in Target.
If I make a new program now, is it based off APD3.0
In target software? it’s based on the formula of whatever your Audiologist has set, in this case proprietary, but again what are you trying to achieve in your fitting? What is the outcome your looking for I wonder.
I’m trying to understand the difference between these two situations:
Global is set to APD3.0, then to
Global is set to NAL-NL2, then REM to NAL-NL2
The first is a mismatch scenario while in the second the fitting rationales match. It seems there could be situations where these different configurations yield different results? I gave some possible examples such as when a new program is added (which would be based on global, maybe incorporating the REM changes?) or hidden functionality linked to have APD3.0 set as global.
Audiologists do not consider we might do some so I want to understand this better and what changes to ask for at a follow-up.
It seems there could be situations where these different configurations yield different results?
What would it matter to your hearing is what your asking, like could it be possible “am I missing out on something” Side by side comparison with different fitting formula’s like Oticon models can, with the Genie software, maybe you could? I think this is how “hallucinates” I still don’t understand what your trying to “understand “ seems to me it’s all best left to your Audiologist to “understand” let’s ask the pros @Neville and @Um_bongo as I’m kinda interested, as I don’t know myself.
The manufacturer aims to reproduce this into a standardised ‘ear’, with a predictive fitting algorithm.
sets the same target of reproduction: but takes the volume and impedance of the canal into account on your particular ear. To NAL, Live Speech Map, or whatever line in the sand you choose. You walk away from the ‘target’ given by the software.
Why have any global option at all then and instead just say fit via ? Maybe Phonak works differently but doesn’t REM update only specific programs in the aids, maybe Automatic only? If a new program is made, is that based upon REM or in this situation the APD3.0 prescription?
Also, the aids do not function only based upon the prescription and can have different settings behind the scenes such as compression speed or other tweaks to the proprietary rationale.
The prescription is just gain and basic compression profile.
There are a bunch of reasons that manufacturers don’t leave them at zero and let the clinician adjust to . The closer to prescriptive targets the hearing aids are at first fit, the less work the clinician has to get them there, the less clinical time they have to spend, the more they may choose to fit that product. On the other hand, many clinics don’t do REM at all and the manufacturers are trying their best to maximize non-REM outcomes, within the limits of not being able to perfectly predict every ear. As for proprietary rationales, they’re just differentiators. Maybe they are good and maybe they are not. The manufacturers have presumably done some internal testing with a few people. Ideologically, they differ from independent targets that have been transparently developed by university researchers over decades with no skin in the profit game.
Your two scenarios will yield roughly similar results, with variance depending on how much of a perfectionist your clinician is and whether the manufacturer has baked anything unique into their proprietary fit (in Phonak’s case, they haven’t with the exception of contrast with has slower compression).
New programs may or may not be based on REM, depending on how you navigate the software.
I wondered about Contrast and will ask whether this was intentional for that reason. Who tends to benefit from that?
Target knows it started with APD3.0. adjusted the gains but left it in APD3.0. New programs are then based on this hyprid of APD3.0 with APD Contrast but gains set to via REM. It may work fine but it is hard to know precisely what is happening. And here I am wanting to A/B DSLv5a.
I wondered about APD Contrast and will ask whether this was intentional for that reason. Who tends to benefit from that?
A subset of users with severe/profound hearing loss or cognitive concerns (so much damage to the ear or dysfunction in the auditory system that spectral cues are no longer that accessible and they have to rely more on temporal cues, which fast acting compression degrades).
I am a fitter, but internationally we are the majority. But when I look at the literature, DSL comes out ahead. A hair ahead though. Could just be variability.
But aside from children, many users are not right on prescriptive targets. Clinicians largely hit targets (if they are good) and then adjust to patient comfort/preference. Think of it as starting with a standard drug dose based on age/sex/weight/whatever and then adjusting based on individual tolerance and symptoms–it’s still better than starting at some RANDOM dose. also shows you what is audible and what is not, which is useful information.
The manufacturer has to fit their aids to ‘something based on the ’, but people need to be aware that the ‘something’ isn’t necessarily their something.
And no, Phonak doesn’t have a ‘special sauce’ fitting method. NAL NL2 has a bit more high frequency gain than VAC+, so for fittings/dispensers that don’t understand this, the Sonova product sounds sharper out of the box than the DeMant product on first fit.
Phonak doesn’t have a ‘special sauce’ fitting method. NAL NL2 has a bit more high frequency gain
When I first connect up any of my Phonaks, enter my , Target always defaults to Adaptive Phonak Digital. Is this always the default, or does it depend on the level of loss?
I think they’ve (Phonak) just modded the to work with their adaptive systems. The Unitrons default fit uses it out of the box, but I’d still it anyway to guarantee veracity.
Laconia, NH
Integration with ADP 3.0 in Phonak Target
Wales, UK
North West UK