PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7668613

Development of a customizable universal digital hearing aid.

N Magotra·F Livingston·S Rajagopalan·J Stewart·K Bricker
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper presents the development of a digital binaural hearing aid using Texas Instruments' floating point TMS320C3X digital signal-processing chip. The device is referred to as the Customized Universal Digital Listening System (CUDLS). CUDLS uses a wide bandwidth (up to 16 kHz) and incorporates speech enhancement (noise reduction) as an integral part of the device. It is capable of sampling up to two input speech channels at a variable sampling rate. We are currently using a sampling rate of 20 kHz for each channel. We have developed our own customized hardware and software to implement CUDLS in real time with zero processing delay. The system has been designed to make it easy for the therapist to modify its features.

Explore related subjects

Correction of Hearing ImpairmentHearing AidsHearing DisordersHumansSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedSpeech PerceptionJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

N Magotra, F Livingston, S Rajagopalan, J Stewart, K Bricker. 1995. Development of a customizable universal digital hearing aid.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7668613/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

[The tasks of the ENT specialist by hearing aid fitting. Part 2: checking the fit, subjective satisfaction, ear mold and hearing aid].

The second part of this series deals with the tasks of the ENT-specialist, who must not endorse the prescription before making sure that the hearing aid recommended by the acoustician will bring sufficient hearing improvement, and that the suggested hearing aid is suitable. The report and audiograms of the acoustician must be compared to his own results, and a check of whether at least three hearing aids from different companies have been compared must be made. The primary aim of patient satisfaction can be checked by means of the "Oldenburger Inventar" (Oldenburg questionnaire), which determines the improvement of hearing ability in quiet and noise, and of auditory localization. Since the otoplastic substantially effects the amplification of the hearing aid, the ENT specialist should make sure that it does not produce feedback, that it has a second boring, and, in case of need, a Libby horn. He should also consider whether an open fitting would be more appropriate. A free-field measurement--with and without noise--shows whether the dB(opt) has been reached. The in situ measurement and the loudness rating by the Würzburger Hörfeld (Wuerzburg auditory field) are of great help in detecting fitting errors. Additional procedures, such as auditory speech training, lip reading, or technical devices, for instance FM-communication or a light alarm clock, are often employed in elderly patients.

Correction of Hearing Impairment↗
PubMed2005

A multisite study to examine the efficacy of the otoacoustic emission/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol: recommendations for policy, practice, and research.

PURPOSE: This article examines whether changes in hearing screening practices are warranted based on the results of the recent series of studies by J. L. Johnson, K. R. White, J. E. Widen, J. S. Gravel, B. R. Vohr, M. James, T. Kennalley, A. B. Maxon, L. Spivak, M. Sullivan-Mahoney, Y. Weirather, and S. Meyer (Johnson, White, Widen, Gravel, James, et al., 2005; Johnson, White, Widen, Gravel, Vohr, et al., 2005; White et al., 2005; Widen et al., 2005) that found a significant number of infants who passed an automated auditory brainstem response (A-ABR) screening after failing an initial otoacoustic emission (OAE) screening later were found to have permanent hearing loss in one or both ears. METHOD: Similar to the approach used by F. H. Bess and J. Paradise (1994), this article addresses the public health tenets that need to be in place before screening programs, or in this case, a change in screening practice (use of a 2-step screening protocol) can be justified. RESULTS: There are no data to suggest that a 2-step OAE/A-ABR screening protocol should be avoided. CONCLUSION: Research is needed before any change in public policy and practice surrounding current early hearing detection and intervention programs could be supported.

Correction of Hearing Impairment↗