Comparison of Vent Effects between a Solid Earmold and a Hollow Earmold

Kuk, Francis; Keenan, Denise; Lau, Chi-Chuen

doi:10.3766/jaaa.20.8.3

Cited by 14 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was done for two reasons. First, an occluding or minimally vented earmold would be appropriate for listeners with this degree and configuration of hearing loss (Kuk et al, 2009). Second, an occluded earmold would minimize (if not completely prevent) entry of the direct sounds into the recording microphones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech Intelligibility Benefits of Hearing Aids at Various Input Levels

Kuk¹,

Lau²,

Korhonen³

et al. 2015

J Am Acad Audiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech Intelligibility Benefits of Hearing Aids at Various Input Levels

Kuk¹,

Lau²,

Korhonen³

et al. 2015

J Am Acad Audiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…REM can also be used to quantify the objective occlusion using self-vocalization instead of external sounds. For measurements of the REUR and the REOR conducted while the hearing-aid user vocalizes a sound, for example, /i/ (e.g., Kuk et al., 2005b , Kuk, Keenan, & Lau, 2009 ), the abbreviations are changed to REUR VOC and REOR VOC , respectively. The difference between those two measures (REOR VOC − REUR VOC ) gives the increase in level at low frequencies and the decrease at high frequencies when occluding the ear canal with an earmold and, therefore, provides a measure of the objective occlusion effect.…”

Section: The Occlusion Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dillon (2012) regarded a vent size of 2 mm “as a good starting point for fixing the occlusion problem”. However, open fittings or an additional increase of the vent size are often necessary to further reduce or eliminate the subjective occlusion effect (e.g., Fulton & Martin, 2006 ; Kiessling et al., 2005 ; Kuk et al., 2005a ; Kuk et al., 2009 ; MacKenzie, 2006 ).…”

Section: The Occlusion Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ability of a vent to transmit sound is determined by its air column’s inertia, described by the acoustic mass. The amount of occlusion decreases with decreasing acoustic mass of the vent ( Curran, 2012 ; Kiessling et al., 2005 ; Kuk et al., 2005a , 2009 ; Kuk & Keenan, 2006 ). The acoustic mass increases in proportion to both increasing length and the square of the decreasing diameter of the vent ( Dillon, 2012 ).…”

Section: The Occlusion Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Open Versus Closed Hearing-Aid Fittings: A Literature Review of Both Fitting Approaches

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the main issues in hearing-aid fittings is the abnormal perception of the user’s own voice as too loud, “boomy,” or “hollow.” This phenomenon known as the occlusion effect be reduced by large vents in the earmolds or by open-fit hearing aids. This review provides an overview of publications related to open and closed hearing-aid fittings. First, the occlusion effect and its consequences for perception while using hearing aids are described. Then, the advantages and disadvantages of open compared with closed fittings and their impact on the fitting process are addressed. The advantages include less occlusion, improved own-voice perception and sound quality, and increased localization performance. The disadvantages associated with open-fit hearing aids include reduced benefits of directional microphones and noise reduction, as well as less compression and less available gain before feedback. The final part of this review addresses the need for new approaches to combine the advantages of open and closed hearing-aid fittings.

show abstract

“…Vent diameters vary but normally range between 1 and 3 mm. A number of studies have been conducted looking at the acoustics of various hearing aid venting styles including traditional parallel vents, reverse horn vents, Y vents, and open fitting hearing aids (Kiessling, Brenner, Jespersen, Groth, & Jensen, 2005; Kuk, Keenan, & Lau, 2005, 2009; Kuk, Keenan, Lau, Dinulescu, et al., 2005; Stuart, Allen, Downs, & Carpenter, 1999; Studebaker & Cox, 1977). Most studies focus on the acoustic properties of these vents with little comment about the spatial interactions within the hearing aid or earmold.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Design of Hearing Aids Incorporating Multiple Vents

Stevenson

Searchfield

2014

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main aim of this study was to investigate the shape variation in the human ear canal and the effects of venting on the spatial design of hearing aids. The second aim was to determine the design feasibility of a multiple venting hearing aid and assess the flexibility of design provided. A statistical shape model based on principal component analysis was created from a dataset of 60 left and 49 right ears. The modal variations of these models were then examined to determine the narrowest portion of the ear canal likely to limit effective venting. Finally, 3D models of two hearing aid shells, one with multiple 0.4-mm vents and the other with a single large 3-mm vent were created. Results showed that more than 50% of the shape variation in the human ear canal can be described by the first three modes of the statistical shape model developed. The narrowest predicted variation of this model had a minimum area of 36.4 mm2, and the mean ear shape was found to have a minimum area of approximately 48 mm2. It is estimated that even with a conservative vent packing of 0.4, multiple venting equivalent to at least a single 2-mm vent is achievable. The predicted variation in the human ear canal provides adequate physical space for a feasible multiple vented hearing aid shell. Furthermore, as multiple small vents are able to fit in around other components in the hearing aid design, certain design flexibility is provided by this venting approach.

show abstract

Comparison of Vent Effects between a Solid Earmold and a Hollow Earmold

Cited by 14 publications

References 6 publications

Speech Intelligibility Benefits of Hearing Aids at Various Input Levels

Speech Intelligibility Benefits of Hearing Aids at Various Input Levels

Open Versus Closed Hearing-Aid Fittings: A Literature Review of Both Fitting Approaches

Spatial Design of Hearing Aids Incorporating Multiple Vents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About