English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Received January 18, 2018 Revised April 12, 2018 Accepted April 25, 2018 Address for correspondence Yang-Sun Cho, MD, PhD Department of OtorhinolaryngologyHead and Neck Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea Tel +82-2-3410-3578 Fax +82-2-3410-3879 E-mail yscho@skku.edu Background and Objectives The main objectives of this study were to determine the clinical usefulness of the program-assisted and real ear measurement (REM)-assisted fitting of hearing aids. Subjects and Method Fifteen participants with moderate to moderately severe hearing loss were enrolled in this study. Objective and subjective fitting results were assessed to compare the benefits between the program-assisted fitting (using a software fitting program) and the REM-assisted fitting. Real ear insertion gain (REIG), sound-field audiometry using warble tone, and Korean Hearing in Noise Test (K-HINT) were performed as objective tests. Sound quality rating was performed as a subjective test. Results In the program fitting, 48.89% of fitting points failed to come within ±10 dB of the REIG target. In the REM fitting, however, the percentage of failure significantly decreased to 23.33% (p=0.013). In K-HINT test, the reception threshold for speech in quiet situation significantly decreased from 50.1 dB HL with the program fitting to 44.7 dB HL after the REM fitting (p<0.001). In front noise condition, signal-to-noise ratio improved from 4.53 dB to 3.50 dB with the REM fitting without statistical significance (p=0.099). In the sound quality rating, the REM fitting (4.27±0.56) showed a significantly better sound quality ratings than the program fitting (3.69±0.74) (p=0.017). Conclusion The REM fitting showed better results in both subjective and objective measurements than the program fitting. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 2018;61(12):663-8

Comparison of Clinical Usefulness of Program-Assisted and Real Ear Measurement-Assisted Hearing Aids Fitting