Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

NAL-NL3 could be released in 2025

This topic is closed.

36 replies2.4k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic
14 people in this conversation10 min readJump to latest

Interesting @Bimodal_user… As a firm advocate of , then hopefully NAL-NL3 will be a big improvement, but a moderate improvement is also fine, thank you for this link, very much appreciated… Cheers Kev :grin:

I had found more, but I haven’t listened to it yet.

Brent Edwards on LinkedIn: Revolutionizing Audiological Care with AI20

This -generated podcast discussion of my keynote presentation at the British Academy of Audiology Conference on AI in Audiology is pretty amazing. Only real…

Screenshot_20241217_015219_LinkedIn

I am unsure. I think it will require updating only the fitting software, such as Phonak Target or Oticon Genie, and maybe the firmware as well.

I’m a little pessimistic and think that old hearing aids won’t get NalNL3 because the hearing aids are not optimized to work with it. And they don’t want to do that because it’s an extra expense, they’d rather do it for new hearing aids. If you have Phonak then you use the phonak formula that phonak improved, for example took the Nal Nl2 and improved it more and called it Phonak etc. It’s just my hunch that it works that way. Starkey did the same and named the formula after himself.

Edited

In reply to @markoo355

@markoo355 said:

I’m a little pessimistic and think that old hearing aids won’t get NalNL3 because the hearing aids are not optimized to work with it.

I don’t think so. My point is that the NAL-NL3 rather only needs computer software to calculate amplification. This calculation could be saved in any hearing aid with enough channels to match the prescription.

@user246 said:

But virtual patients do exist, Its called KARL. Works quite well.

Are KARL virtual patients only for audiological cases? Thanks for the information.

I understand, but you know how big companies think - If it works, don’t change it, if something won’t work because of that, it will only be a bad reputation for them. A new formula will be introduced for a new hearing aid because companies want to sell more new products. NalNl3 will be a new feature that will attract new customers.

In reply to @tenkan

Isn’t used to more closely match the actual result to the prescription generated by a fitting formula? Or is REM generating its optimal fit in some other manner from using fitting formulas?

Why could one not start from another formula in the aid and use REM to fit to NAL-NL3 as determined by the REM software? It might be less perfect but would it not be close?

You can find more information about this basic procedure from the interwebs, but proprietary fitting formulas change when is done because it doesn’t know what the manufacturers formula is, so close enough for some people I guess.
Real Ear Measurement (REM) is a process used by audiologists to program hearing aids by measuring how well the hearing aid amplifies sound in your ear canal.

How it works.

An audiologist inserts a small probe microphone into the patient’s ear canal, close to the eardrum. The probe measures how the hearing aid amplifies sounds across a range of frequencies. The audiologist can then adjust the hearing aid’s settings if needed.
REM is used because it calibrates to your specific hearing, every person’s ear canal is different, so the way sound resonates can vary quite a bit.
Common formula used is NAL and , manufacturers also develop their own fitting formulas, so some variables to consider, REM is not the holy grail of fitting, just another tool in the tool box.

Let me try again. Say you fit to Oticon’s proprietary VAC+. Then you run using . Does that adjust the fit to be more NAL-NL2 than VAC+? If so, why can’t the fit be adjusted in a similar manner to NAL-NL3 by starting with something else such as NAL-NL2?

As far as I am aware… , has very little to do with the actual choice of fitting formula, there are about a dozen or so fitting formulas in Target software, you can choose which one you prefer, most will sound terrible to your ears…I recall being fitted with NAL NL2 for the first time, approximately 3 years ago, REM was done, and it sounded absolutely awful, everything was loud & brash… But, I persevered with it, after about a month, it became more natural as I acclimatised, eventually I would choose no other formula… I believe, NAL NL3 will just be another choice, and I will most certainly give it a go, where it appears… Cheers Kev :wink:

Good source on , On page 10 it talks loosely about this topic. My take: Ideally one should select a fitting rationale (formula) on the REM machine that matches the rationale shown in the fitting software. If that option is not available, then one can enter the values manually (at least on some machines). So it would seem that if the fitting software has a fitting rationale in it (like NAL-NL3) and one’s REM machine either had that rationale or had the possibility of entering values manually, one could fit a hearing aid to any fitting rationale one wanted. https://www.oticon.global/-/media/oticon/main/pdf/master/whitepaper/23077uk_cookbook_real%20ear%20measurement.pdf7

Related discussions