Inspiré de la chaussure de course créée par Bottes UGG - Achat / Vente UGG Classic pas cher la semelle intermédiaire pour une absorption maximale des Achat Nike Air Max 1/90 Pas Cher Pour Homme chocs et donc un excellent amorti.

Receiver in the Aid Compared to Receiver in the Ear

Receiver in the Aid Compared to Receiver in the Ear

May 25, 2010 In the News

Receiver-in-the-aid (RITA) and receiver-in-the-ear (RITE) models are available in many commercially available open-canal hearing instruments. Alworth et al (2010) examined the impact of the two designs based on experience and results from 25 subjects (18 males, 7 females, mean age 67 years) with mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). Subjects were given two separate six-week trials with each device. The authors evaluated probe microphone measures as well as other objective and subjective measures in quiet and noise, and across aided and unaided conditions.

With regard to the occlusion effect, there were no statistically significant differences. However, RITE model demonstrated additional reserve gain prior to acoustic feedback at 4000 and 6000 Hz. The reserve gain before feedback averaged across all participants was 12 dB for RITA and 14 dB for RITE. With regard to speech recognition tests comparing aided and unaided conditions, no significant differences were found. The authors note that these tests are likely not sensitive enough to demonstrate differences with open-canal fittings. The subjective abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB) results showed benefit when comparing aided to unaided.

Receiver location (RITA vs RITE) did impact overall preference by the subjects. Indeed, 76 percent preferred the RITE based primarily on sound quality, speech clarity, as well as retention/comfort.

For More Information, References, and Recommendations

Alworth LN, Plyler PN, Reber MB, Hohnstone PM. (2010) The Effects of Receiver Placement on Probe Microphone, Performance, and Subjective Measures with Open-Canal Hearing Instruments. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 21(4):249-266.

Also of Interest