No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This sessions covers a wide range of topics related to the selection and fitting of hearing aids. Areas addressed extend also to the technical operation of hearing aid amplification parameters and components. In general, the session proceeds through five steps pertaining to the hearing aid fitting process covering identification of the candidate, measurements prior to selection, selection, verification and validation. The session addresses a number of specific points within each of the steps regarding specific patient assessments, patient characteristics, hearing aid amplification parameters, hearing aid measurements and outcome measurements. The depth of coverage will offer a session of novel information, but the breadth of coverage will allow for the discussion of many topic areas of interest to audiologists fitting hearing aids in a variety of clinical settings.

No description available.

What do hip-huggers, HEMI engines, and behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aids have in common? Not a whole lot except that all three were trendy in the 1960s and 1970s, then fell into decline, and now, in the new millennium, are selling like those proverbial hotcakes! They have also all come back in somewhat different forms. Chrysler's new HEMI engine, introduced in 2002, is a little smaller than that of yesteryear. The old hip-huggers have been reincarnated as “low-rise jeans.” And the BTE's return to dominance of the hearing aid market has been fueled by the appearance of smaller instruments with open-canal (OC) fittings, beginning in 2003 with the GN ReSound Air®. Today, every manufacturer offers smaller BTEs, mostly fitted with an open canal, and often categorized under new names, such as post-auricular-canal, over-the-ear, and mini- and micro-BTEs. This new breed of products is also showing up in an amazing range of shapes and colors, as that old industry dream of stylish hearing aids is finally coming true. The Hearing Industries Association (HIA), the main source of U.S. market sales data, recently reported that 51.45% of all hearing aids sold in 2007 were of some BTE style. However, it remains uncertain how much of the boom in BTE sales has resulted from smaller open-fit BTE hearing aids, herein referred to as OC mini-BTEs. To find out the extent of the OC mini-BTE boom—and also what dispensers and their patients think of this product type—the 2008 Hearing Journal/AudiologyOnline (HJ/AO) survey included a special section of 10 questions for audiologists, hearing instrument specialists, and other hearing professionals about their experiences with and opinions on these devices. The survey also included questions on many other topics, which will be reported on next month. But this Cover Story focuses on what our survey learned about OC mini-BTEs—their popularity and their perceived benefits and drawbacks. First though, here's a quick look at how the survey was conducted and who took part.

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.

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.