Download PDF
Semin Hear 2001; 22(2): 161-172
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-14979
Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Adaptation to Enhanced Dynamic Range Compression (EDRC)-Examples from the SENSO P38 Digital Hearing Aid

Francis Kuk
  • Widex Hearing Aid Company, USA, Long Island City, New York
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2001 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

This article uses the findings of a study on the SENSO P38 power hearing aid as an illustration of the dilemma that clinicians may face in deciding the course of action when the results of the initial fit are objectionable to the wearer. The P38 study was conducted on 20 adult subjects with a severe to profound degree of hearing loss. The results showed that its low-compression threshold and high-level compression were effective in improving the wearer's speech understanding ability over time. However, the same features also resulted in initial negative subjective reactions from the wearers. This article reminds clinicians that in attempting to resolve a wearer's complaints, it is necessary to understand fully the operation of the recommended hearing aid, the wearer's hearing loss and hearing aid history, the specifics of the wearer's complaints, and the results of the fitting. Proper counseling is necessary to ensure maximum benefit.

KEYWORD

Enhanced dynamic range compression (EDRC) - adaptation - high-level compression - compression threshold - troubleshooting

REFERENCES

  • 1 Kuk F. Optimizing compression: the advantages of a low compression threshold.  Hear Rev Suppl (High Performance Hearing Solutions III: Marketing and Technology) . 1999;  44-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired.  Ear Hear . 1990;  11 40-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kuk F, Ludvigsen C. Variables affecting the use of general-purpose prescriptive formulae to fit modern nonlinear hearing aids.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1999;  10 458-465
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Van Tasell D, Soli S, Kirby V, Widin G. Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1987;  82 1152-1161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kuk F, Potts L, Valente M, Lee L, Picirrili J. Evidence of acclimatization in subjects with severe-to-profound hearing loss.  J Am Acad Audiol 2001 (in press).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 }Kuk F. Using the I/O curve to help solve subjective complaints with WDRC hearing instruments.  Hear Rev. 1998;  5 8-16,59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kuk F. Recent approaches to fitting nonlinear hearing aids. In: Roeser RJ, Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H eds. Audiology: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Practice Management New York: Thieme 2000: 261-290
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Ching T, Dillon H, Byrne D. Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1998;  103 1128-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pascoe D. Clinical measurements of the auditory dynamic range and their relation to formulas for hearing aid gain. In: Jensen J, ed. Hearing Aid Fitting: Theoretical and Practical Views 13th Danavox Symposium, Denmark, 1988: 129-151
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Dillon H, Katsch R, Byrne D, Ching T, Keidser G, Brewer S. The NAL-NL1 prescription procedure for non-linear hearing aids. Australian Hearing National Acoustic Laboratories Annual Report 1997/1998, 1998: 2-5
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Gabbard S. Experience with a power digital hearing aid in children. Instructional course at the American Academy of Audiology Conference Chicago 2000
    Google Scholar