Challenges and Recent Developments in Hearing Aids

This is the second part of a review on the challenges and recent developments in hearing aids. Feedback and the occlusion effect pose great challenges in hearing aid design and usage. Yet, conventional solutions to feedback and the occlusion effect often create a dilemma: the solution to one often leads to the other. This review discusses the advanced signal processing strategies to reduce feedback and some new approaches to reduce the occlusion effect. Specifically, the causes of three types of feedback (acoustic, mechanical, and electromagnetic) are discussed. The strategies currently used to reduce acoustic feedback (i.e., adaptive feedback reduction algorithms using adaptive gain reduction, notch filtering, and phase cancellation strategies) and the design of new receivers that are built to reduce mechanical and electromagnetic feedback are explained. In addition, various new strategies (i.e.,redesigned sound delivery devices and receiver-in-the-ear-canal hearing aid configuration) to reduce the occlusion effect are reviewed. Many manufacturers have recently adopted laser shell-manufacturing technologies to overcome problems associated with manufacturing custom hearing aid shells. The mechanisms of selected laser sintering and stereo lithographic apparatus and the properties of custom shells produced by these two processes are reviewed. Further, various new developments in hearing aid transducers, telecoils, channel-free amplification, open-platform programming options, rechargeable hearing aids, ear-level frequency modulated (FM) receivers, wireless Bluetooth FM systems, and wireless programming options are briefly explained and discussed. Finally, the applications of advanced hearing aid technologies to enhance other devices such as cochlear implants, hearing protectors, and cellular phones are discussed.

[1]  L. Wong,et al.  Hearing Aid Satisfaction: What Does Research from the Past 20 Years Say? , 2003, Trends in amplification.

[2]  Gitte Keidser,et al.  Sound quality comparisons of advanced hearing aids , 2003 .

[3]  O Dyrlund,et al.  Gain and feedback problems when fitting behind-the-ear hearing aids to profoundly hearing-impaired children. , 1990, Scandinavian audiology.

[4]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Tolerable Hearing Aid Delays. II. Estimation of Limits Imposed During Speech Production , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[5]  Huanping Dai,et al.  New feedback‐cancellation algorithm reported to increase usable gain , 2004 .

[6]  Margaret W. Skinner,et al.  Hearing Aid Evaluation , 1988 .

[7]  Jennifer Groth Digital signal processing has made active feedback suppression a reality , 1999 .

[8]  Patrick M. Zurek,et al.  Reducing acoustic feedback in hearing aids , 1995, IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process..

[9]  Ampclusion Management 101 : Understanding Variables A tutorial on occlusion , its causes , and how to reduce / eliminate its effects , .

[10]  H. Gustav Mueller Thereʼs less talking in barrels, but the occlusion effect is still with us , 2003 .

[11]  R M Cox Combined Effects of Earmold Vents and Suboscillatory Feedback on Hearing Aid Frequency Response , 1982, Ear and hearing.

[12]  J Kiessling,et al.  Benefit of a digital feedback suppression system for acoustical telephone communication , 2001, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[13]  Nick Dinulescu Changing with the Times: Applying Digital Technology to Hearing Aid Shell Manufacturing Digital technology, in the form of CAD/CAM shell-making, is now being implemented in several manufacturers’ products. Here’s what it means and how it will change your fittings , 2005 .

[14]  A M Engebretson,et al.  Properties of an adaptive feedback equalization algorithm. , 1993, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[15]  J. Kates Constrained adaptation for feedback cancellation in hearing aids. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  O Dyrlund,et al.  Acoustic feedback margin improvements in hearing instruments using a prototype DFS (digital feedback suppression) system. , 1991, Scandinavian audiology.

[17]  Gail I. Gudmundsen Fitting CIC Hearing Aids—Some Practical Pointers , 1994 .

[18]  J Agnew Acoustic Feedback and Other Audible Artifacts in Hearing Aids , 1996, Trends in amplification.

[19]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Using hearing aid directional microphones and noise reduction algorithms to enhance cochlear implant performance , 2004 .

[20]  T Lunner,et al.  Variations in the feedback of hearing aids. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  W. T. Peake,et al.  Experiments in Hearing , 1963 .

[22]  Abeer Alwan,et al.  Steady-state analysis of continuous adaptation in acoustic feedback reduction systems for hearing-aids , 2000, IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process..

[23]  T Lunner,et al.  System identification of feedback in hearing aids. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  King Chung,et al.  Challenges and Recent Developments in Hearing Aids: Part I. Speech Understanding in Noise, Microphone Technologies and Noise Reduction Algorithms , 2004, Trends in amplification.

[25]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Utilizing hearing aid directional microphones and noise reduction algorithms to improve speech understanding and listening preferences for cochlear implant users , 2004 .

[26]  James M. Kates,et al.  Adaptive Feedback Cancellation in Hearing Aids , 2003 .

[27]  Bowen Marshall Advances in technology offer promise of an expanding role for telecoils , 2002 .

[28]  John Florian Bluetooth is beginning to make its mark in hearing healthcare , 2003 .

[29]  Jacob Benesty,et al.  Adaptive Signal Processing: Applications to Real-World Problems , 2003 .

[30]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. II. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  H. Mueller A candid round-table discussion on modern digital hearing aids and their features , 2002 .

[32]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Effects of spectral smearing on phoneme and word recognition. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  R. Plomp,et al.  Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. I. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  J Tonndorf,et al.  Mechanical parameters of hearing by bone conduction. , 1976, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  P. Nageswara Rao,et al.  Rapid tooling in metalcasting , 2002 .

[36]  B Rafaely,et al.  Feedback path variability modeling for robust hearing aids. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  D. Fabry Hearing aid physical fit: The next revolution? , 2002 .

[38]  T Houtgast,et al.  Effects of degradation of intensity, time, or frequency content on speech intelligibility for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  Jozef J. Zwislocki,et al.  Acoustic Attenuation between the Ears , 1953 .

[40]  H. Gustav Mueller,et al.  Studies of the Hearing Aid Occlusion Effect , 1996 .

[41]  James M. Kates,et al.  Feedback cancellation in hearing aids: results from a computer simulation , 1991, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[42]  Arlene C Neuman,et al.  Trends In Amplification , 2006, Trends in amplification.