Comparison of the electroacoustic characteristics of five hearing aids.
This paper describes a comparison of the electroacoustic characteristics of five hearing aids: (1) a linear BTE aid of the type dispensed under the UK National Health Service (NHS), the BE19; (2) an analogue programmable BTE aid incorporating two-channel wide dynamic range compression, the ReSound BT2; (3) and (4) two digital BTE aids incorporating multi-channel wide dynamic range compression, the Phonak Claro and the Danavox Danalogic; (5) a disposable ITE hearing aid with single-channel compression, the Songbird. Measurements of frequency response using a 2 cc coupler showed that the NHS aid had a distinct undesired peak around 1 kHz. The response rolled off at low and high frequencies, and no gain was applied above about 4000 Hz. The BT2 and Claro both showed somewhat irregular responses with effective upper frequency limits of 5000-6000 Hz. The Danalogic had a reasonably smooth response and provided gain up to 6000 Hz. The Songbird had a smooth response and provided gain up to about 7000 Hz. All aids showed reasonably low harmonic and intermodulation distortion (probably below audible levels for hearing-impaired listeners), the Phonak Claro being the best in this respect. Measures of the effective input noise were obtained using two new methods. The NHS aid had the highest (worst) effective input noise, whereas the Songbird had the lowest, especially at low frequencies. The BT2 and the two digital aids had similar noise levels on one measure, but the BT2 was superior on the other measure. The compression circuits were characterized by measuring attack and release times and by using a method described by Stone and Moore (1992). The aids varied markedly in the extent to which they compressed amplitude modulation at the rates typically occurring in speech (2-10 Hz), the Claro providing the least compression and the Danalogic and Songbird aids providing the most. Overall, the results indicate that the NHS aid performed more poorly in several respects than the other aids. There were no great differences in electroacoustic characteristics between the remaining analogue aids and the digital aids, although the Songbird had a somewhat wider frequency range and lower effective input noise than the other aids.
Moore
B C
BC
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, UK.
Stone
M A
MA
Alcántara
J I
JI
D000161:Acoustic Stimulation / Q000295:instrumentation; D000162:Acoustics / Q000295:instrumentation; D004867:Equipment Design; D006310:Hearing Aids; D006311:Hearing Disorders / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans