Individual Differences within and across Feedback Suppression Hearing Aids

Abstract

These results suggest caution when selecting FS algorithms clinically since different models can demonstrate similar AGBF when averaging across ears, but result in quite different AGBF values in a single individual ear.

Evaluation of a New Powerful Bone-Anchored Hearing System: A Comparison Study

“…BCD1 has an omnidirectional microphone system, and its frequency response is set with an analog trimmer. BCD1 contains no dynamic feedback cancellation system (Ricketts et al, 2008;Schaub, 2008). BCD2 is a digital bone-anchored device featuring in situ bone-conduction measurements, measurement of the feedback loop, dynamic feedback cancellation, adaptive multiband directionality, and a proprietary noise reduction algorithm.…”

Style Preference Survey: A Report on the Psychometric Properties and a Cross-Validation Experiment

“…Recently, issues related to the interplay between venting to relieve occlusion and the potential for feedback have been able to be effectively addressed for many patients by increasing venting while limiting feedback via digital feedback suppression (DFS) algorithms (e.g., Kates, 1999;Ji et al, 2005;Boukis et al, 2007;Lee et al, 2007). Currently, it is possible to provide up to 15-26 dB more gain prior to feedback with the same venting configuration as utilized without DFS (e.g., Freed and Soli, 2006;Merks et al, 2006;Shin et al, 2007;Ricketts et al, 2008;Spriet et al, 2010). Importantly, an equivalent vent size of at least 3.5-4 mm is needed to eliminate complaints associated with occlusion (e.g., Kiessling et al, 2005;Kuk et al, 2005).…”

“…Despite continued improvements in feedback suppression technology, the largest vents, particularly the OC style, still have the potential to limit the amount of available gain before feedback. This limited gain before feedback may in turn reduce audibility, at least for patients with more than a moderate degree of hearing loss (Ricketts et al, 2008). In addition, large vents, or open-fit configurations allow amplified signals to leak out of the ear, making it difficult to provide adequate low-frequency gain for some patients.…”

“…(3) ease of use; (4) speed and convenience of service delivery; (5) feedback, (6) audibility, with its potential implications for speech understanding in quiet and in noise; (7) occlusion (objective and subjective); (8) sound quality of external sounds; (9) aided speech recognition ability in spatially separated noise; and (10) sound source localization (Cox, 1982;Upfold et al, 1990;Popelka et al, 1998;Kochkin, 2000;Noe et al, 2000;Baumfield and Dillon, 2001; Moore and Tan, 2003;Kiessling et al, 2005;Kochkin, 2005aKochkin, , 2005bKuk et al, 2005;Mueller and Ricketts, 2006;Taylor and Berkeley, 2007;West and Smith, 2007;Ricketts et al, 2008;Mueller, 2009). These factors are important because they can affect hearing aid nonuse as well as outcomes associated with hearing aid use.…”

Test-Retest Reliability of Probe-Microphone Verification in Children Fitted with Open and Closed Hearing Aid Tips

“…Because comfort and occlusion issues are important for nearly all hearing aid wearers, the potential benefits of open technology are expected to apply to a wide range of patients encompassing both adults and children. Effective digital feedback suppression (DFS) processing was also critical to the success of open-canal hearing aids, as it allowed the use of a nonoccluding eartip while still maintaining sufficient gain without feedback for a range of individuals with mild to moderately severe hearing loss (Mueller, 2006;Ricketts et al, 2008). Due to the popularity and potential benefits of open-canal hearing aids, it is especially important to examine any factors specific to this style that may present challenges during fitting.…”