PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

David Fabry

Publications and source records attributed to David Fabry.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Effect of type of noise and loudspeaker array on the performance of omnidirectional and directional microphones.

Differences in performance between omnidirectional and directional microphones were evaluated between two loudspeaker conditions (single loudspeaker at 180 degrees; diffuse using eight loudspeakers set 45 degrees apart) and two types of noise (steady-state HINT noise; R-Space restaurant noise). Twenty-five participants were fit bilaterally with Phonak Perseo hearing aids using the manufacturer's recommended procedure. After wearing the hearing aids for one week, the parameters were fine-tuned based on subjective comments. Four weeks later, differences in performance between omnidirectional and directional microphones were assessed using HINT sentences presented at 0 degrees with the two types of background noise held constant at 65 dBA and under the two loudspeaker conditions. Results revealed significant differences in Reception Thresholds for Sentences (RTS in dB) where directional performance was significantly better than omnidirectional. Performance in the 180 degrees condition was significantly better than the diffuse condition, and performance was significantly better using the HINT noise in comparison to the R-Space restaurant noise. In addition, results revealed that within each loudspeaker array, performance was significantly better for the directional microphone. Looking across loudspeaker arrays, however, significant differences were not present in omnidirectional performance, but directional performance was significantly better in the 180 degrees condition when compared to the diffuse condition. These findings are discussed in terms of results reported in the past and counseling patients on the potential advantages of directional microphones as the listening situation and type of noise changes.

Aged↗

Creating the evidence: lessons from cochlear implants.

This paper compares the evidence-based outcomes between cochlear implants and hearing aids during the past several decades. Despite many similarities, there are also some important differences that define the progress for the two disciplines. Perhaps the most significant distinction exists in terms of the difference between the Food and Drug Administration's treatment of hearing aids as Class I medical devices, while cochlear implants are defined as Class III devices. Another point of divergence has been the number of publications in archival, peer-reviewed journals; implant papers have been steadily increasing during the past decade, while hearing aid papers have declined during the same period. The impact of these differences on the past, present, and future of hearing aid and cochlear implant research, technology, and clinical practice is discussed.

Cochlear Implants↗