Category Archives: Internet

Cochlear Dead Regions and High Frequency Gain: How to Fit the Hearing Aid

This month’s blog post discusses an excellent article from Dr. Cox and colleagues at the University of Memphis. How do patients with diagnosed dead regions respond to prescriptively appropriate amplification? Read on to find out:

Cox, R.M., Johnson, J.A. & Alexander, G.C. (2012). Implications of high-frequency cochlear dead regions for fitting hearing aids to adults with mild to moderately severe hearing loss. Ear and Hearing, May 2012, e-published ahead of print.

Understanding the NAL-NL2

This post describes the NAL-NL2 prescriptive formula. Included are differences between the NAL-NL1 and NAL-NL2.

Keidser, G., Dillon, H., Flax, M., Ching, T. & Brewer, S. (2011). The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Research 1 (e24), 88-90.

A preferred speech stimulus for testing hearing aids

Do you use a speech stimulus when testing hearing aids? With so many options for real-ear measures it’s difficult to select between noise, synthetic speech or real speech. Each of which may yield different measurement results. Ideally we would have a standardized speech stimulus for testing hearing aids. This month’s post summarizes the development of the International Speech Test Signal (ISTS) a speech stimulus designed for testing hearing aids. Within a few years this stimulus should be available in most real-ear equipment and can currently be regarded as the preferred stimulus for the verification of modern hearing aids.

Holube, I., Fredelake, S., Vlaming, M. & Kollmeier, B. (2010). Development and analysis of an international speech test signal (ISTS). International Journal of Audiology, 49, 891-903.

AudiologyToday article: Stay on Target?

The March/April issue of AudiologyToday includes an editorial piece discussing the importance (and process) of monitoring speech audibility in a hearing aid fitting.

  • Galster, J.A. (2011, March April). Stay on target?. Audiology Today, 23(2) , 26-30.

    Impact of Classroom Noise on Children’s Listening

    This month’s article review discusses:

    Howard, C. S., Munro, K. & Plack, C. J. (2010). Listening effort at signal-to-noise ratios that are typical of the school classroom.  International Journal of Audiology, 49, 928-932.

    It’s no surprise that classroom noise impacts children’s speech understanding, attention and learning ability. Researchers at Cambridge and Manchester universities documented the listening effort required for children between the ages of 9 and 12 to listen at noise levels found in typical classrooms. The authors conclude that increasing noise level increases the effort that students must expend when listening to their teachers.

    Understanding the benefits of bilateral hearing aids

    This month’s article review discusses:

    A Prospective Multi-Centre Study of the Benefits of Bilateral Hearing Aids

    Boymans, M., Goverts, S.T., Kramer, S.E., Festen, J.M. & Dreschler, W.A. (2008). A prospective multi-centre study of the benefits of bilateral hearing aids. Ear and Hearing 29(6), 930-941.

    For many people that work in hearing related professions it’s difficult to believe that someone in need of two hearing aids would consider using a single hearing aid. This is an outdated philosophy. Yet some governments only provide a single hearing aid to those in need of two, often citing outdated or ancillary literature. The authors of this study do an excellent job, with a large group of participants, of documenting some benefits of using two hearing aids.

    Your Ears Might Be Better For Identification Than Your Fingerprints

    Gizmodo has an interesting article about the use of ear printing for identification.

    Through a new shape-finding algorithm called “image ray transform,” which boasts 99.6 percent accuracy, according to a study presented at the IEEE Fourth International Conference on Biometrics Sept. 29, the outer ear may prove to be the most accurate and least intrusive way to identify people.

    Comparing localization ability with BTE and CIC hearing aids

    The November update to the StarkeyEvidence blog summarizes:

    Best, V., Kalluri, S., McLachlan, S., Valentine, S., Edwards, & Carlile, S. (2010). A comparison of CIC and BTE hearing aids for three-dimensional localization of speech. International Journal of Audiology, Early Online, 1-10.

    The authors looked at differences in localization ability between hearing aids that fit inside the ear and those that sit on top of the ear. The findings suggest that placement of a hearing aid microphone inside the ear canal may improve localization ability, when compared to microphone placement on top of the ear.

    Mad Scientist?

    Stumbled across this photo online. An entertaining observation about mad scientists…

    Mad Scientist

    Effects of Digital Noise Reduction on Children’s Speech Understanding

    The October edition of the blog discusses a recent study investigating the effects of digital noise reduction on children. The results show that, on average, digital noise reduction does not impact speech understanding. However, additional analysis of individual data suggest that some children may be affected by digital noise reduction. This should help hearing care professionals make decisions about the appropriate prescription of digital noise reduction to children.