Comparison of vent effects between a solid earmold and a hollow earmold

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Volumn 20, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 480-491

  Kuk, Francis ^a   Keenan, Denise ^a   Lau, Chi Chuen ^a  

^a Widex Hearing Aid Company   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic mass; Earmold; Occlusion effect; Thin tube fitting; Vent

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EARDRUM; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; MALE; MATERIALS TESTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; SOUND INTENSITY; SOUND TRANSMISSION; SPEECH ANALYSIS; VOCALIZATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; HEARING; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PILOT STUDY; PROSTHESIS; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADULT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HEARING AIDS; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PILOT PROJECTS; PROSTHESIS FITTING; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 70350506091     PISSN: 10500545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.20.8.3     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Cortez R, Dinulescu N, Skafte K, Olson B, Keenan D, Kuk F. (2004) Changing with the times: applying digital technology to hearing aid shell manufacturing. Hear Rev 11(3):30-38.
2. Dillon H. (2001) Hearing aid earmolds, earshells and coupling systems. In: Hearing Aids. New York: Boomerang Press, 117-157.
3. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A. (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175-191.
4. Kiessling J, Brenner B, Jespersen C, Groth J, Jensen O. (2005) Occlusion effect of earmolds with different venting systems. J Am Acad Audiol 16(4):237-249. (Pubitemid 43379165)
5. Killion M, Wilber L, Gudmundsen G. (1988) Zwislocki was right....a potential solution for the "hollow voice" problem (the amplified occlusion effect) with deeply sealed earmolds. Hear Instrum 29(10):14-18.
6. Kochkin S. (2000) MarkeTrak V: why my hearing aids are in the drawer: the consumer's perspective. Hear J 53:34-42.
7. Kuk F. (1990). Preferred insertion gain of hearing aids in listening and reading-aloud situations. J Speech Hear Res 33:520-529.
8. Kuk F, Keenan D, Lau C. (2005) Vent configurations on subjective and objective occlusion effect. J Am Acad Audiol 16(9):747-762. (Pubitemid 43375776)
9. Kuk F, Plager A, Pape N. (1992) Hollowness perception in noisereduction hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 3:39-45.
10. Lybarger S. (1980) Earmold venting as an acoustic control factor. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg J, eds. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. 1st ed. Baltimore: University Park Press, 197-217.
11. Nemes J. (2008). Open-canal hearing aids: a revolution in the making? Hear J 61(9):19-24.
12. Valente M, Valente M, Potts L, Lybarger E. (1996) Options: earhooks, tubing, and earmolds. In: Valente M, ed. Hearing Aids: Standards, Options, and Limitations. New York: Thieme Medical Publishing, 252-326.