National Acoustic Laboratories Library
Image from Google Jackets

Fitting recommendations and clinical benefit associated with use of the NAL-NL2 hearing aid prescription in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients

By: Contributor(s): Material type: TextTextSubject(s): Online resources: In: International Journal of Audiology 2016; Early Online: 1–6Abstract: Objective: For a group of cochlear implant recipients, who use hearing aids in the contralateral ear, the benefit of NAL-NL2 relative to a recipients’ own prescription was assessed. Whether there was a preferred frequency response and/or gain deviation from NAL-NL2 was then investigated. Design: Speech recognition and self-reported ratings of benefit were examined for the recipients’ own prescription compared to the NAL-NL2 prescription, in the bimodal and hearing-aid alone conditions. Paired-comparison of hearing-aid frequency response was conducted with default NAL-NL2 and two variants, a low frequency boost or cut. Using a loudness balancing procedure, the hearing-aid gain required to achieve equal loudness between the devices was measured. Study sample: Sixteen adults with post-lingual hearing loss. Results: A 22% increase in group median word score in quiet with use of NAL-NL2 in the hearing-aid alone condition. In the bimodal condition there was no improvement with NAL-NL2. Default NAL-NL2 frequency response was preferred by 67% of participants. For 56% of participants, the preferred gain to achieve loudness balance across bimodal devices was within 5-dB of prescribed values. Conclusions: The NAL-NL2 prescription provides a high level of clinical performance, and an acceptable frequency response and gain for most participants.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
No physical items for this record

Objective: For a group of cochlear implant recipients, who use hearing aids in the contralateral ear, the benefit of NAL-NL2 relative to a
recipients’ own prescription was assessed. Whether there was a preferred frequency response and/or gain deviation from NAL-NL2 was
then investigated. Design: Speech recognition and self-reported ratings of benefit were examined for the recipients’ own prescription
compared to the NAL-NL2 prescription, in the bimodal and hearing-aid alone conditions. Paired-comparison of hearing-aid frequency
response was conducted with default NAL-NL2 and two variants, a low frequency boost or cut. Using a loudness balancing procedure, the
hearing-aid gain required to achieve equal loudness between the devices was measured. Study sample: Sixteen adults with post-lingual
hearing loss. Results: A 22% increase in group median word score in quiet with use of NAL-NL2 in the hearing-aid alone condition. In the
bimodal condition there was no improvement with NAL-NL2. Default NAL-NL2 frequency response was preferred by 67% of participants.
For 56% of participants, the preferred gain to achieve loudness balance across bimodal devices was within 5-dB of prescribed values.
Conclusions: The NAL-NL2 prescription provides a high level of clinical performance, and an acceptable frequency response and gain for
most participants.

Powered by Koha