Digital Hearing Aid by Banaras Speech And Hearing Centre

Description

Digital Hearing Aids

Mark Ross, Professor Emeritus of Audiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, has published and lectured extensively, in this country and abroad, mainly on topics dealing with the habilitation and rehabilitation of children and adults with hearing loss.

Dr. Ross has written, in the IFHOH (International Federation of HOH) June 1999, an article entitled "Some Reflections on Digital Hearing Aids".

He notes that 16 manufacturers are presently or will soon be introducing digital hearing aids to the market place. These aids have a myriad of new features. (Ward's comment, this market place rush to get into the fast moving profitable digital sales, means consumers must be careful and to stay with respected brand names.)

While noting the remarkable technological advances this represents, Ross further states, still the question remains: Has it been demonstrated that this technological capacity has produced improved speech perception scores above and beyond that possible with advanced analog (older style) hearing aids?

He also noted the paucity of clinical studies attesting to and supporting the objective superiority of digital hearing aids.

And further quoting David Fabry, audiological researcher at Mayo Clinic, who discusses, facts, myths, and leaps of faith, associated with digital hearing aids. That facts regarding improved speech perception are equivocal, and exposing some of theÃ… myths (e.g. no need for a volume control, aids will last longer, cost not an important factor.) He concludes with his leap of faith -- that digital aids will eventually and unambiguously improve the speech perception capabilities of more people in more listening situations than is now possible. Dr. Ross concurred.

My (Ward's) opinion of what is being said by Dr. Ross is that one must, at this time, use extra care in acting on the belief that a digital hearing aid, at a cost of several thousands of dollars, will resolve hearing loss problems any better than a quality, well fitted, lower cost analog aid.

Dr. Ross further bears out a study by Ruth Bentler and her associates of the University of Iowa. Here, people were tested in what could be called a placebo test with the use of hearing aids. In one situation, the people tried two hearing aids, each for a month. The first aid was labeled digital. In a second test, similar digital aids were marked analog. Meaning, the participants in the test thought the aids were not digital but analog.

The people were asked to compare their hearing results of the two aids. With a few exceptions, the subjects overwhelmingly preferred the aid marked digital. The only actual difference being their belief that one of the aids represented the cutting edge of modern hearing aid technology. In tests, the speech perception scores did not translate into improved comprehension of speech. These studies show we can be swayed by our expectations and by clever marketing appeals.

Ross also adds, I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but we do need evidence regarding performance of digital hearing aids that is not potentially contaminated by hopes, expectations or self interest on the part of either the consumer, the dispenser or the manufacturer.

Dr. Ross concludes; re digitals, that dispensers are still in a learning curve, that people trying these aids should be prepared and not hesitate to return often for tune-ups.

My (Ward's comment) Dr. Ross is a gentleman, much more so than myself. I feel that many dispensers, in spite of their well intentions, either may not be computer oriented or simply haven't done their homework enough to assure that your (computer assisted) initial adjustment will provide the full benefits of that digital or even analog (often called digitally programmable which does not process the sound digitally) computer adjusted aid.

Product Specification

Submit your review