ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2017
Attenuating the ear canal feedback pressure of a laser-driven hearing aid.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection, Speech Recognition, Loudness, and Preference Outcomes With a Direct Drive Hearing Aid: Effects of Bandwidth.Trends in hearingTrial
- Mouse middle-ear forward and reverse acoustics.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021Article
- Frequency-specific activation of the peripheral auditory system using optoacoustic laser stimulation.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Fluid-Structure Finite-Element Modelling and Clinical Measurement of the Wideband Acoustic Input Admittance of the Newborn Ear Canal and Middle Ear.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2017Article
- Achieved Gain and Subjective Outcomes for a Wide-Bandwidth Contact Hearing Aid Fitted Using CAM2.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Microphone placement behind the pinna, which minimizes feedback but also reduces perception of the high-frequency pinna cues needed for sound localization, is one reason why hearing-aid users often complain of poor sound quality and difficulty understanding speech in noisy situations. In this paper, two strategies are investigated for minimizing the feedback pressure (thereby increasing the maximum stable gain, MSG) of a wide-bandwidth light-activated contact hearing aid (CHA) to facilitate microphone placement in the ear canal (EC): (1) changing the location of the drive force and its direction at the umbo, and (2) placing an acoustic damper within the EC to reduce the feedback pressure at the microphone location. The MSG and equivalent pressure output (EPO) are calculated in a 3D finite element model of a human middle ear based on micro computed tomography (micro-CT) images. The model calculations indicate that changing the umbo-force direction can decrease feedback pressure, but at the expense of decreased EPO. However the model shows improvements in MSG without sacrificing EPO when an acoustic damper is placed in the EC. This was verified through benchtop experimentation and in human cadaver temporal bones. The results pave the path towards a wide-bandwidth hearing aid that incorporates an EC-microphone design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.