What Did You Say?
The World Health Organization published a study in 2012 revealing that the problem has a worldwide presence. That study drew the line for disabling hearing loss at a loss of greater than 40dB (decibels) in the better hearing ear for adults (defined as people over the age of 15). Generally, audiologi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Experience : the Magazine of the Senior Lawyers Division, American Bar Association American Bar Association, 2014-07, Vol.24 (2), p.41 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The World Health Organization published a study in 2012 revealing that the problem has a worldwide presence. That study drew the line for disabling hearing loss at a loss of greater than 40dB (decibels) in the better hearing ear for adults (defined as people over the age of 15). Generally, audiologists consider a loss of up to 25dB as "normal," a loss of 26-40dB as a "mild" hearing loss, 41-55dB as a "moderate" loss, 56-70dB as "moderately severe," 71-90dB as "severe," and over 90dB as "profound." Symptomatology of those terms reflects the following deficits: I find it very interesting that so many more people find it a larger psychological hurdle to use an assistive listening device than to use glasses or contact lenses. I use the term "assistive listening devices" to reflect the fact that some, but not all, devices qualify as "hearing aids." Ear trumpets and very large hearing aids have gone the way of the Model T. Assistive listening devices have become very unobtrusive in recent years and, in many cases, almost undetectable, especially when worn with a longer hair style. In talking to audiologists, I have learned anecdotally that the two most popular designs for hearing aids are those that are completely in the ear canal (sometimes referred to as CIC) and those that fit unobtrusively behind the ear with a clear plastic and very hard to see tube carrying the sound into the ear. I actually have tried several devices myself and found that I have a personal preference for the behind-the-ear style, as I like the sound quality better. The CIC hearing aids fit in and fill the ear canal, and my impression of the sound quality (at least on the ones that I tried) was that they had an artificiality that I found bothersome and that I did not experience with the behind-the-ear models. I learned from the audiologists I spoke with that my reaction likely results from the fact that the behind-the-ear devices leave the ear canal open, allowing a combination of amplified sound and natural (unamplified) sound blending together, while with the CIC versions, the sound largely comes through the CIC hearing aid. The audiologists I talked to told me that for people with moderate hearing loss either style will work, but many individuals prefer the behind-the-ear version, likely for the reasons I expressed. For people with more severe hearing loss, I am informed that the CIC style generally works better. Please note that these are anecdotal generalizations and that you should m |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1054-3473 |