Objective: The recent integration of automated real-ear measurements (REM) in the fitting software facilitates the hearing aid fitting process. Such a fitting strategy, TargetMatch (TM), was evaluated. Test-retest reliability and matching accuracy were quantified, and compared to a REM-based fitting with manual adjustment. Also, it was investigated whether TM leads to better perceptual outcomes compared to a FirstFit (FF) approach, using software predictions only. Design and study sample: Ten hearing impaired participants were enrolled in a counterbalanced single-blinded cross-over study comparing TM and FF. Aided audibility, speech intelligibility and real-life benefits were assessed. Repeated measurements of both TM and REMs with manual adjustment were performed.
Results: Compared to a REM-based fitting with manual adjustment, TM had higher test-retest reliability. Also, TM outperformed the other fitting strategies in terms of matching accuracy. Compared to a FF, improved aided audibility and real-life benefits were found. Speech intelligibility did not improve.
Conclusions: Preliminary data suggest that automated REMs increase the likelihood of meeting amplification targets compared with a FF. REMs integrated in the fitting software provide additional reliability and accuracy compared to traditional REMs. Findings need to be verified in a larger and more varied sample.
Keywords: Real-ear measurements (REM); hearing aid fitting; speech intelligibility; target mismatch; verification.