Abstract
The remote microphone system (RMS) must be appropriately working when fitting it in a person with hearing loss. For this verification process, the concept of transparency is adopted. If it is not transparent, the hearing aid (HA) may not capture the user’s voice and his peers appropriately, or the RMS may not have the advantage in gain needed to emphasize the speaker’s voice. This study investigates the influence of the receiver’s gain setting on the transparency of different brands and models of RMS and HAs. It is a retrospective chart review with 277 RMS from three distinct brands (RMA, RMB, and RMC) and HAs. There was an association of the receiver’s gain setting with the variables: brand of the transmitter/receiver (p = 0.005), neck loop’s receiver vs. universal and dedicated receivers (p = 0.022), and between brands of HA and transmitter/receiver (p < 0.001). RMS transmitter (odds ratio [OR = 7.9]) and the type of receiver (neckloop [OR = 3.4]; universal [OR = 0.78]) presented a higher risk of not achieving transparency in default gain, confirming and extolling the need to include electroacoustic verification in the protocol of fitting, verification, and validation of RMS and HA.
Highlights
The improvement in speech perception in noise for persons with hearing loss (HL)when using assistive technology, such as the remote microphone system (RMS), is well established [1]
Some exploratory studies on the characterization of the procedures used by audiologists to evaluate RMS found limited evidence on the use of electroacoustic measures [7], and several studies reinforce the importance of audiologists advocating the need for the use of these measures in the assessment of hearing aid (HA) and RMS [8,9,10]
This paper aims to corroborate the impact of verifying the electroacoustic measurement on the RMS and HA’s fitting process and reinforce the importance of using standardized protocols in the rehabilitation process of individuals with HL
Summary
The improvement in speech perception in noise for persons with hearing loss (HL)when using assistive technology, such as the remote microphone system (RMS), is well established [1]. Some exploratory studies on the characterization of the procedures used by audiologists to evaluate RMS found limited evidence on the use of electroacoustic measures [7], and several studies reinforce the importance of audiologists advocating the need for the use of these measures in the assessment of HA and RMS [8,9,10]. These studies were developed with restricted samples of HA and RMS, prioritizing the results of only one manufacturer [8,11]. The results were limited given the offers of different current models and technologies, such as the digital modulated (DM) system, which followed the predecessor frequency modulated (FM) system
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
