BACKGROUND: New and improved methods of feedback suppression are routinely introduced in hearing aids; however, comparisons of additional gain before feedback (AGBF) values across instruments are complicated by potential variability across subjects and measurement methods. PURPOSE: To examine the variability in AGBF values across individual listeners and an acoustic manikin. RESEARCH DESIGN: A descriptive study of the reliability and variability of the AGBF measured within six commercially available feedback suppression (FS) algorithms using probe microphone techniques. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixteen participants and an acoustic manikin. RESULTS: The range of AGBF across the six FS algorithms was 0 to 15 dB, consistent with other recent studies. However, measures made in the participants ears and on the acoustic manikin within the same instrument suggest that across instrument comparisons of AGBF measured using acoustic manikin techniques may be misleading, especially when differences between hearing aids are small (i.e., less than 6 dB). Individual subject results also revealed considerable variability within the same FS algorithms. The range of AGBF values was as small as 7 dB and as large as 16 dB depending on the specific FS algorithm, suggesting that some models are much more robust than others. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

No description available.

No description available.

It is well established that modern directional microphones in hearing aids provide listeners with an improved speech understanding in noise. De-spite this, the impact of directional microphones in real life conditions is limited. In fact, hearing in noise remains one of the biggest problems for hearing aid users. Fortunately, recent developments in super-directional technology, at least in laboratory settings, promise to deliver significant benefits to hearing aid users. Experiments suggest large improvements in speech understanding in noise and significant preference for highly directional systems. This advantage is often extrapolated to suggest equal advantages in real world listening situations. However, it is increasingly apparent that hearing in noise entails various complex tasks for the listener. Consequently, super-directional technology may be advantageous in some situations but may also have some limitations in its usage. Here we present a discussion of super-directional microphone technology based on several studies. In our research we have examined various factors that influence benefit such as beam width design, adaptation speed, preservation of spatial cues, vent sizes, acoustic scene, and reverberation. Our evidence appears to be confounded by individual characteristics of the listener such as age, hearing loss, personality traits, and cognition. All these factors combined will guide our discussions and thoughts about future research and development of super-directional systems

Despite the growing popularity of state-of-the-art open-canal mini-BTEs, which were discussed in last month's Cover Story, and the increasing prevalence of advanced hearing aid features, the annual Hearing Journal/Audiology Onlinedispenser survey conducted in January found only small, inflation-appropriate increases in the average retail price of hearing aids over the past 3 years. Specifically, the average price of the hearing aids that participating dispensers reported selling in 2007 was $1986, only marginally higher than the average prices of $1912 and $1868 in 2006 and 2005, respectively. Retail pricing is just one of many topics addressed in this, the second of two articles reporting the results of the 2008 dispenser survey. The March article focused on a special section of the survey exploring the experiences and attitudes of dispensing audiologists and hearing instrument specialists related to open-canal mini-BTE hearing aids. This article reports key findings from the rest of the Internet survey, which drew valid responses from 418 hearing healthcare professionals, including 291 audiologists and 120 traditional dispensers.

Let's talk beer for a moment. Beginning back in the mid-90s, at the Sandlot microbrewery located within Coors Field in Downtown Denver, a fairly tasty Belgian-style witbier called Bellyslide (a baseball term) was available in small batches. It was a favorite of a few, but ignored by most, and even scorned by some (it was unfiltered). But then, about 6 years ago, Coors gave it a new name— Blue Moon—started producing it in bulk, and rolled it out across the U.S. It became the top-performing beer brand in 2007, and today Blue Moon is closing in on making the top ten list of all domestic beers sold. Why is it so popular? The taste of course, right? Maybe. How about the pretty blue label? Or the fact that it's usually served with an orange slice? Or that Coors disguises it as a “craft beer”? Or, maybe it's just more fun to say “Blue Moon” than “Bud.” As with beer, people also make brand purchase decisions about hearing aids. But there's a difference. In the case of hearing aids, the consumer usually does not select the brand. His or her dispenser does. It's not uncommon to sit down with four different people in private practice and discover that each has a different favorite hearing aid brand. And interestingly, all of them say they picked this particular brand because it is the best. But how can all four brands be the best? Or are they all just the same? Only a few audiologists have conducted research on hearing aid brand preferences. One of them is Earl Johnson, AuD, PhD, an audiologist at Mountain Home, TN, Veterans Affairs Medical Center and assistant professor at East Tennessee State University. While obtaining his PhD at Vanderbilt University with a focus on hearing aid research, Dr. Johnson also studied consumer behavior at Vanderbilt's Owen business school—an unusual combination that has led to much of his research. You've probably also noted his recent book chapters and journal publications related to modern hearing aid technology and hearing aid selection. While this is his debut on Page Ten, Earl is not a new contributor to the Journal. For many years he assisted with HJ'sdispenser surveys and contributed articles on these findings. I'm not sure if Earl drinks Blue Moon because of the orange slice, but I'm quite certain he can provide you some interesting insights on why you have a hearing aid brand preference.

Book Summary: Dizziness comes in many forms in each age group – some specific to an age group (e.g. benign paroxysmal vertigo of childhood) while others span the age spectrum (e.g., migraine-associated vertigo). This content organizes evaluation and management of the dizzy patient by age to bring a fresh perspective to seeing these often difficult patients.

No description available.

No description available.

Purpose: To investigate how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) report involving parents in intervention for phonology-based speech sound disorders (SSDs), and to describe the home practice that they recommend. Further aims were to describe the training SLPs report providing to parents, to explore SLPs? beliefs and motivations for involving parents in intervention, and to determine whether SLPs? characteristics are associated with their self-reported practice. Method: An online survey of 288 SLPs working with SSD in Australia was conducted. Result: The majority of SLPs (96.4%) reported involving parents in intervention, most commonly in providing home practice. On average, these tasks were recommended to be completed five times per week for 10?min. SLPs reported training parents using a range of training methods, most commonly providing opportunities for parents to observe the SLP conduct the intervention. SLPs? place of work and years of experience were associated with how they involved and trained parents in intervention. Most (95.8%) SLPs agreed or strongly agreed that family involvement is essential for intervention to be effective. Conclusion: Parent involvement and home practice appear to be intricately linked within intervention for phonology-based SSDs in Australia. More high-quality research is needed to understand how to best involve parents within clinical practice.