Copyright © 2024 AudiologyOnline - All Rights Reserved

AudiologyOnline Phone: 800-753-2160

Exam Preview

Signia Expert Series: Is autoREMfit a Reasonable Verification Alternative?

View Course Details Please note: exam questions are subject to change.
Print

1.  The primary benefit of autoREMfit is:
  1. A more accurate fitting to target
  2. A faster fitting to target
  3. An alternative to fitting to prescriptive targets
  4. None of the above
2.  An audiologist who would have little interest in autoREMfit would be one who:
  1. Doesn't believe in fitting to prescriptive targets
  2. Doesn't believe in probe-microphone measures
  3. Doesn't believe in objective hearing aid verification
  4. All of the above
3.  Regarding the popularity of autoREMfit, which of the following is a true statement:
  1. Most hearing aid companies and most probe-mic manufacturers have implemented autoREMfit
  2. Only few hearing aid companies, but most probe-mic manufacturers have implemented autoREMfit
  3. Most hearing aid companies, but only few probe-mic manufacturers have implemented autoREMfit
  4. Only a few hearing aid companies and probe-mic manufacturers have implemented autoREMfit
4.  A common aspect of all autoREMfit procedures is that:
  1. They all use only the NAL-NL2 procedure
  2. They all use the REUG as part of the procedure
  3. It must be conducted with the probe inserted in the earcanal
  4. They all call the procedure by the same name
5.  The input for the autoREMfit procedure is:
  1. The ISTS
  2. The carrot passage
  3. ICRA signals
  4. It varies among manufacturers
6.  According to the case studies of Mueller and Ricketts:
  1. All manufactures produce autoREMfits that are within 2-3 dB of a traditional speech mapping fitting
  2. All manufactures produce autoREMfits that have errors of 5-10 dB from a traditional speech mapping fitting
  3. The accuracy of the autoREMfit procedure varies considerably among manufacturers
  4. None of the above
7.  According the research of Baumann et al, (Signia/Unity):
  1. Mean fittings were very close to REIG targets
  2. Test-retest reliability was good
  3. Mean output was in good agreement with REAR speech mapping fittings
  4. All of the above
8.  According to the research of Denys et al (Phonak/Otometrics)
  1. Test-retest reliability was good
  2. Average error for autoREMfit from prescriptive target was
  3. Error for autoREMfit was better than clinician-fit
  4. All of the above
9.  According to the research of Folkeard et al (Oticon/Verifit):
  1. The manufacturers fit fell below VerifitLink (autoREMfit)
  2. The clinicians fit fell below VerifitLink (autoREMfit)
  3. The SII values for autoREMfit fell significantly below clinician fit
  4. All of the above
10.  Also, according to the research of Folkeard et al (Oticon/Verifit):
  1. AutoREMfit/patient takes about the same amount of time as clinician-fit
  2. AutoREMfit/patient is about 3-4 minutes faster than clinician-fit
  3. AutoREMfit/patient is about 7-10 minutes faster than clinician-fit
  4. Clinician-fit is about 3-4 minutes faster than autoREMfit

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience. By using our site, you agree to our Privacy Policy.