Exam Preview for 24696: Trainable Hearing Aids

Trainable Hearing Aids - Friend or Foe for the Clinician?

Please note: exam questions are subject to change.

1. With today’s trainable hearing aids, it is possible to train: The overall frequency response Gain for soft, average and loud independently Gain for different listening environments All of the above
2. Event-based versus time-based learning would probably be best for someone who: Frequently goes in and out of different listening situations Spends most of the time in the same listening situation Spends most of the time in loud background noise Someone who rarely makes VC changes
3. Routinely using trainable hearing aids had this potential patient benefit: The patient becomes a partner in the fitting process Less VC changes are needed when the patient goes from one listening situation to another. The patient will shape the gain and output to a more preferred level All of the above
4. The research of Mueller et al (2008) revealed that when individuals are fitted 6 dB above NAL-NL1 prescriptive targets, on average, their trained gain is: About 10 dB above NAL targets Right at NAL-NL1 targets About 6 dB below NAL-NL1 targets None of the above
5. The research of Mueller et al (2008) revealed that when individuals are fitted 6 dB below NAL-NL1 prescriptive targets, on average, their trained gain is: About 6 dB above NAL targets Right at NAL-NL1 targets About 6 dB below NAL-NL1 targets None of the above
6. The research of Mueller and Hornsby (2011) revealed that when previous users had been using hearing aids fitted to NAL-NL1 targets for loud inputs, on average they trained their gain for loud inputs to: About 10 dB above NAL targets Within a few dB of NAL targets About 10 dB below NAL targets None of the above
7. The research of Mueller and Hornsby (2011) revealed that when previous users had been using hearing aids fitted to 10 dB below NAL-NL1 targets for soft inputs, on average they trained their gain for soft inputs to: About 10 dB above NAL targets Within a few dB of NAL targets About 10 dB below NAL targets None of the above
8. Palmer (2012) compared people who had trained their hearing aids for one month to individuals who had trained for two months. When performance on the HINT was compared following the training, she found: The people who trained for two months did substantially better The people who trained for two months did significantly better, although it was only a 1 dB SNR improvement. The people who trained for two months did significantly poorer, although it was only 1 dB SNR worse. There was no significant difference on the HINT for the two groups.
9. Palmer (2012) compared HINT performance for the prescribed NAL-NL1 fitting to the fitting that people had trained to following one or two months of training. She found: . HINT performance was substantially better for the NAL-NL1 fitting HINT performance was significantly better for the NAL-NL1 fitting, although it was only a 1 dB SNR improvement. HINT performance was significantly poorer for the NAL-NL1, although it was only 1 dB SNR worse. HINT performance was the same for the two different programs
10. Following a comparison of the NAL-NL1 to the trained program in the real world, Palmer (2012) had the subjects select the program they would want to continue to use (if they could only use one). The findings were: Nearly all the subjects picked the NAL-NL1 program About 2/3 of the subjects picked the NAL-NL1 program About 2/3 of the subjects picked the trained program The program preference was split 50/50.