AI suggests that your recommendation of higher gain in all frequencies will not improve hearing ability, may impede the Spheric speech in loud noise algorithym, and may damage hearing and the ability to hear with long term use at these levels. So I have reverted to my normal, safe settings.
Of course, cranking up everything wouldn’t help, I didn’t say that. I said that insertion loss (earplug effect) from your domes should be overcomed by proper hearing aid gain so that you don’t hear it poorer than with unaided ear.
So the gain of low frequency should be carefilly “titrated”, but not made louder that much. Strange that AudiogramDirect didn’t prevent that.
Simply speaking, you need a bit of amplification in lower frequencies and mid freq. and more over 2 kHz. Low frequencies shouldn’t be amplified too much to prevent upper spread of masking which reduces understanding speech in noise
It would be nice to have an automated test so one does not know it is being pressed. The timing and other aspects would also need to vary.
Since AudiogramDirect is part of the Target fitting software, it is intended be run by a hearing aid provider as another option for assessing the patient’s hearing loss. It is not intended to be run by the hearing aid user, so there was no reason for Phonak to automate it. You can always have someone else start the tones for you so that you do not know when they are being triggered. In my case the results I got from running AudiogramDirect on myself turned out to be more accurate than the hearing test the audiologist gave me, which seems very odd. I could hear noticeably better with the initial fitting from Target using the AudiogramDirect values than from the initial fitting using the hearing test results from the audiologist.
I had also wondered at what point to indicate that I heard a tone - should it be when it was just barely audible and maybe took a couple seconds to be sure, or when it was more clearly audible right away. In my case, since I knew when the sound was being generated, I went with when it was faint but obvious as soon as I pressed the keyboard button. As someone suggested to me, I could experiment around with that, trying both ways to see which resulted in better hearing results for me. My audiologist claimed my insurance didn’t cover and was going to charge a couple hundred extra for it - for something she said took 15 minutes to do. She also claimed in most cases it wasn’t helpful and the Phonak representative seemed to downplay the usefulness as well, so haven’t had that done at this point. I figured since the AudiogramDirect results are taken using the actual hearing aid receivers and domes in my own ears, then that should at least result in a fitting somewhat similar to if I REM was performed and adjustments made for that.
She also claimed in most cases it wasn’t helpful and the Phonak representative seemed to downplay the usefulness as well
In regards to the in situ testing, generally it’s going to come out better than your actual test. Knowing when you are presenting, you should probably go with “clearly audible". In the booth when you can’t predict the tones you should go with “if you think you heard it".
In regards to the in situ testing, generally it’s going to come out better than your actual test. Knowing when you are presenting, you should probably go with “clearly audible". In the booth when you can’t predict the tones you should go with “if you think you heard it".
Thanks. That is pretty much what I did in both cases. I think I may have had a couple of false positives in the booth, as that test did not seem very accurate as far as the initial fitting went.
AudiogramDirect on myself turned out to be more accurate than the hearing test the audiologist gave me, which seems very odd. I could hear noticeably better with the initial fitting from Target using the AudiogramDirect values than from the initial fitting using the hearing test results from the audiologist
I too had theses results using Direct. I found it to be much better than fittings from audiologist and . I did learn from a pro here on the forum that this process tends to be a little under fit so bumped gains up just a touch as a . This enabled me to actually get word understanding scores up for a few years before moving to .
I did learn from a pro here on the forum that this process tends to be a little under fit so bumped gains up just a touch as a DIY. This enabled me to actually get word understanding scores up for a few years before moving to CI.
Thanks for passing that good information on. I will probably redo AudiogramDirect before long and if I find any of the tones to be just barely hearable then I may use the next louder tone so that the gains will automatically be adjusted. Or I could do like you did and just manually bump the gains up for the tones that are just barely heard in the test.
Poland
Texas Hill Country
