Talk:Hearing aid

High resolution image for HearingAidTypes.jpg

I have uploaded a higher resolution file for HearingAidTypes.jpg to wikicommons, filename: HearingAidTypes.png. I am not sure how to link these two files so that it will show up as a higher resolution image. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmerlo (talk • contribs) 18:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Early Hearing Aids

Ear horn and ear trumpet lead to this page, but it contains no information about them. This page leads you to horn (acoustic), which just leads you back here again. Which means there's essentially no information on Wikipedia about ear trumpets.... Why isn't there a separate article? --Toastedcheese (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Does the fact that hearing aids amplify sound for a person who already has hearing loss speed up the rate at which such a person loses their hearing? I'm completely deaf in one ear and partially in the other, myself; but I've never had a hearing aid nor even had one suggested for me. Corporal 20:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Visiting an audiologist or an Ear-Nose-Throat physician (outside of the US, Canada and the UK) is always your best bet. To me this sounds like an ad, not NPOV. --Etxrge 06:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be POV if it gave the name and address of the audiologist/ENT specialist or his/her practice. As it is, it is merely good advice even if a little self-evident. Dieter Simon 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Advice duly accepted. As I was the one who put up the original statement, I have edited it a little for clarity.--Coryp 20:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an audiologist in the UK for the last 18 years, I've yet to see any evidence that hearing aid use speeds up the rate of hearing loss. If you have it, I would be very keen to see it.--86.148.60.22 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am an audiologist and have never known hearing aid rehabilitation leading to a further deterioration in hearing. There are cases where hearing naturally deteriorates over time (presbyacusis) but a hearing aid would not accelerate this progression which is often seen as a result of increasing age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.207.144 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Modern hearing aids do not simply "amplify" sounds. 90.249.133.97 (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Re:violation of NPOV

Quote: "This chapter is biased determinative opinion which is in violation of NPOV.In the similar way ststement "audiologists are often provides substandard services" would be equallyt unacceptable." What exactly does all this mean?

Have you ever bought a digital hearing aid? One that hasn't been thoroughly adjusted to your individual needs, measured and electonically/digitally tested? Only a qualified audiometrist (or its equivalent titles and accompanying qualifications) can do that. You may want to throw £200 away but I would rather spend £800 on professional services which can guarantee (or as near as dammit) me an aid that works for me. This has absolutely nothing to do with POV, this is helpful reminder of what may happen if you don't care. Have reversed the para in the article. Dieter Simon 00:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To: Dieter Simon. You can't simply give advises based on your personal experience. If you want give information about alternative way of getting HA , such as online its fine, but you can't say "this is better than that, so don't do that'. "BEWARE"(???). You put warning inside the information article.(???) Who are you kidding. You want to state "There is A and there is B". Fine. You want to say "A is the first letter and B is second". Fine. But you can't simply state "I like B. It's better sound. It's better than A". Why do I even have to explain this basic things about neutrality to a grown person, unless he has a personal agenda. BTW I clearly explained reason for my edit. Go ahead refresh your info about rules of NPOV. That what you should've done before reediting me. Do the right thing and undo your edit. P.S. BTW Been there, done it. Both way. Our personal experiences has nothing to do with neutral and unbiased info. Even if they 100% true. There is numerous discussion boards, forums to vent your anger, to express your personal opinion or to give advice. One of it,which I put link to could've been just the right place for you. And why did you remove link to it? What's resonable unbiased explanation you can give me about it? Mind boggling...216.233.120.165

Hi 216.233.120.165, the para on buying hearing aids will be changed, it wasn't created by myself in first place. However, may main contention is that rather than removing it as you did, you should have improved on it by describing the factual/actual process of buying a hearing aid and yes, the pitfalls that may attend the purchase. I agree, a bald warning may not be appropriate, but there are ways and means of editing this, not just removing it.

It is no good you saying there is no particular way, or even that there are many different ways, of purchasing a hearing aid, especially a digital one, that just won't do. You cannot just walk into a shop, put your money down and walk away with a hearing aid. As I said, digital hearing aids need to be bought under professional guidance whether you like or not, and that is not a personal view, but a fact. Since you pride yourself in being an exponent on NPOV, that of all things should have guided you. This is not an advert for the professional services of audiometrists/audiologists, after all no names have been published, but a statement of fact that this type of help is needed. So, I invite you to have a go like all good Wikipedians and edit this because it needs doing and stating. Dieter Simon 01:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

To: Dieter Simon.If you would've been asked to create a manual for TV set, people would've know exactly which program is best for them, but have no idea how to switch channels. Give them info of how to use it and let them make their own mind what to watch. You replace one mess with another. Same judgmental opinion, only now compounded into semantic."Need, should, have to, must be, more important"... A lot of recommendations, very little info. May be I am not fair to your efforts. Criticizing you all the time and you are the one who's trying... But I have to. You have such a record contributing to Wiki, you should know better what favoritism means. I might take up on your advise and contribute to this issue in a little while. Meanwhile, I see that you are making attempts, but perhaps something personal, biased holding you back. You asked me a few questions before. I answered them. Now its my turn. Are you an audi? Do you have any personal relation to that field? Regards.216.233.120.165

Then alter it to what you think it should read, don't just "might" take up on my advice, "do" take up on my advice and edit it. I really have no axe to grind in this, but people who are in need of a hearing aid need also expert advice, that is not from me but from the experts. If you think differently please enlighten us. I am not making any attempts at anything, as I said I came in on this at a late stage, it was not my original paragraph, and I am quite disinterested. I am yet to see what your anti-bias consists of. You keep on about it but don't show us what form this takes. I am agog to find out. However, please don't just remove the paragraph. Dieter Simon 23:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Buyer beware

It should be noted that the heading "Buyer beware" has been reverted some time ago as being POV. Expect the worst. Heading changer beware. Dieter Simon 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hearing Aid Sale

It was not an experiment. I've contributed to this article before. If you have bias or no info regarding the article paragraph please restrain yourself of further editing. The latest edit provided very little or hardly any related info regarding paragraph title. If the potential editor willing to make informative contribution I'll be gladly provide some points to cover for the paragraph title purpose. I'm reverting it back to previous version by SM. Please discus it before you attempt to make any changes. 216.233.121.2 6:42PM MAY9 2006

I have not reverted the previous version because of vandalism but because the present version is so much better. It may be USA-centred but that should not be a reason for preventing the American side from being heard. It is up to us Non-American Wikipedians to show how sales and after-sales are affected in other countries. So, please concentrate on that rather than conduct an argument for no reason than that the previous version was there before.

Sorry, this was me, forgot to sign off. Dieter Simon 23:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

and, still, i would like to hear of personal experience regarding types and makes of HA. I need this for my old mother (88) who is a misician , loosing her hearing. thanks ashrab

Hi Ashrab, I am afraid your mother (with your help) will have ot seek professional advice on this. If you look at the article and then the "Processing" section, that will give you some idea of what it entails. I am sorry but no outsider can give you advice off hand as your mother's hearing will

have to be tested by professionals and on the strength of the test results best advice can be given. Dieter Simon 22:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A reminder to please keep opinions out of the article itself, especially in the "hearing aid sales" section. (I've made some small edits to bring this back in line with WP policy.) Government standards for consumer practices are things we can cite and leave verifiable for readers. No matter how good or helpful you think advice is, advice and opinions that are not previously published and cited from a reliable source cannot be verified and, thus, do not belong in the article. --Ds13 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying about "keeping opinions out of the article...", Ds13. Yes, private opinions should never be part of an article unless their are being cited as either being pro or con the main theme of an article and then being dealt with in the light of general tenor of that theme. I trust you weren't referring to my recommendation to Ashrab that he should ask his mother to seek professional advice. If you are talking about another section or instance, perhaps it should be under that section and not under "Hearing aid sales"? or perhaps address the User concerned whose points you are trying refute?. Dieter Simon 23:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't necessarily referring to you. (I put this as a top-level post.) Over the past few months, there have been many poor choices of wording in the article such as what someone "should" do or what the "best" advice is. I've reverted these in the past and left comments in the edit history. Some of these edits came back and these are the opinions I'm objecting to. And I agree; we shouldn't have to remind people that opinions and uncited advice don't belong here, but for some reason this article is attracting such contributions. Well-intentioned, I'm sure, but inappropriate. --Ds13 00:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Buying a Hearing Aid The article should make it clear that outside the United States many advanced countries have health services which supply free or cheap hearing aids. Such a service has no built-in money making bias so the advice given is probably more trustworthy. 82.47.176.254 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)mikeL

Hearing Loop systems

I have added a note to the telecoil section about hearing loops. I was surprised that there seems currently no article about these on WP but I guess it is because they remain relatively rare in the US. In the UK they are almost mandatory in many public places because of our Disability Discrimination Act 2005. For a number of years I have been on the Environmental Aids committee of Hearing Concern - see http://www.hearingconcern.org.uk/campaigns/camp_envaids.html

I shall shortly be writing a seperate article on Induction Loop systems to expand this topic. Dsergeant 15:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hard of Hearing Advocacy link

The link I tried to add was removed because it was was considered spam. If you go to the "US and News and World Report" site and do a search on hearing aids, you will find a comprehensive article regarding hearing aids, "Good Vibrations: They're still hearing aids. But they're better--and smaller". In this article the site I tried to add is referenced along with all the other sites that are already in the external link to this article. The following is a quote from the article:

"If Ralph Nader had run a website in the '60s for people with hearing problems, it might have been like Hard of Hearing Advocates. Nothing and no one are beyond criticism on this volunteer-run site. The message board is especially feisty."

I am confused as to how this was perceived as spam as this site does not sell anything and I don't believe there are any advertisements on it either. This is the premier hard of hearing online forum. hoha2 00:18 AM, April 20 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me it would be more helpful to simply link to the US News and World Report article itself. --CliffC 05:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Home of the most active..." sounds quite spammy. Advocates sounds spammmy (just as mortgage). Adding 2 links to the same site also look s quite spammy. In other words: try to be more factual and try to sound less advertising. Further CliffC's response also hints that Wiki is not a mere link-page. Good luck! Didgeweb 11:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Natalie, an administrator, gave me her blessing for including the link after removing it the other day. Please look at the site and tell me what makes it spam now, Dieter Simon? hoha2 19:36 AM, April 23 2007 (UTC)

The following was copied from the Hearing Loss article

"Hoha2, nevertheless, you are advertising for your own company, aren't you? Even if you are giving a service, it is still advertising for your own firm. I am sorry that is very much spam, from where I am sitting.

Pasted from my own user talk page. Dieter Simon 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)"

Dieter, I am not sure what you are talking about. By you argument every external link is a advertisement. Please explain why the other links are not advertisements and this is. I am a hard of hearing member of the forum for the site and have no other affiliation to the site. Where on the site do you see any profiteering occurring? It is an advocacy group for the hard of hearing. "Us News and World Report" acknowledges it's relevancy to the hard of hearing. Please go to the forum and look at its content. It is purely material that all hard of hearing people should read. It has the answers to every question that has ever been asked about hearing problems and how it effects my life and every other hard of hearing person's life. It is run by the hard of hearing for the hard of hearing. It's a world reknown site. Please state what part of the site indicates that it is a "company" or a "firm". I am not hyping anything. I am a hard of hearing person who spent decades looking for a resource like this. And that is why I want to put the link up. For myself and for others who are hard of hearing or are geniunely concerned about the cause for the hard of hearing. Next time you respond please provide references to substantiate your argument. hoha2 22:36 , April 23 2007 (UTC)

Pasting the following from elsewhere in reply to hoha2's comments:

The first thing I should say in reply to your message is, that you have indeed chosen a rather unfortunate nick in signing off as "hoha2" which obviously refers to the name of the website you are "advocating" ("Hard of Hearing Advocates"). Other editors will connect this with some personal interest. I don't know what your personal involvement in the forum is, you are seemingly more than a mere member of a forum, as you are signing off in this way.

You are also not registered as a "user", you are not a Wikipedia editor as such (hence the red link and on clicking on the user link produces a blank field), but are an editor using Wikipedia for your own purpose (how ever noble). At this stage I should refer you to the guide-lines for WP-users as regards to spam: Wikipedia:Spam, and see "External link spamming" where the first para reads as follows:

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.

The problem is that it is not at all obvious what the website represents, a forum yes, but what else? Is there a hidden meaning? Editors will not get involved in the website if it looks anything like advocating a "cause". So every time you add your external link, it may stay for a while only to be "reverted" at the next opportunity when other editors come across it.

Even if there is no commercial interest involved, it is still promoting a website (and a cause). Perhaps registering as a WP user, and then writing a little para referring to forums which can help those who have hearing difficulties, might alter the perception of what you are trying to do, but don't hold your breath. It will be pounced on for the above reasons, depending on the perception of the editor at the time. There can be no certainty that an external link (or any other content, for that matter) will remain if there is the slightest doubt of "spam", I am sorry, we are an encyclopaedia and not there to promote "causes". However, I wish you luck in your endeavours. Dieter Simon 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dieter Simon 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again Dieter your argument is null and void. There is already an advocacy link in the external link for shhh. All the links are either run directly or indirectly by audiologists who obviously make money off the hard of hearing. Are you perhaps associated with the field of audiology? I will add the hoha link. If you or anybody else deletes the link, I will delete every other link. Since aferall no external link meets any of your criteria. Of course I will reference you as the source for the reason why the links were be deleted. hoha2 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing, hoha, I am just advising you what happens in Wikipedia, nor am I involved to any great extent. You were wondering why and I gave the reason that in Wikipedia anyone can edit an article according to the guidelines. I gave you good advice to register and be an editor on the article and explain what the forums do, rather than just enter an external link which almost certainly would be rmoved. That's all I can do for you. I shall paste this in the two hearing-related articles. Dieter Simon 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Dieter Simon 00:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent advancements etc.

There are many references in this article to "recently" that I would think need "as of" beside them. I don't know if the recent advancements mentioned are from now (2007) or from the day wikipedia was started. Just giving "as of" would be enough, because the word "recently" can only apply for a while, and can mean anything (World War I was a recent war compared to the crusades, but WWI isn't recent at all compared to Desert Storm). Just give the date whatever was introduced, or if you only know that its recent, at least say "recent as of" so that the article can stand up to time even if it isn't continually edited. I'd like to think the guidelines would want articles in a state that if archived now would still provide a lot of accurate information in a thousand years. If I'm wrong about this set me straight. I'm not a contributor to this article and may never read it again who knows, but I thought those that were may be able to provide more accurate dates, or as I said at least mention when it was written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hastor (talk • contribs) 06:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Propose to remove sections about In USA, and out of USA

These sections don't belong in a global article, besides they lack referances therefore I hearby challange them! DCwom 12:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole article seems to me to be written from a United States point of view and to be based on assumptions that US practices of supply, provision and prices are universal. They are not universal. That is why I added the two lines that you don't like.

(The other name 'Deaf Aid' is quite acceptable. WP needs it listing with a re-direction)

(heres a reference http://www.rnid.org.uk/information_resources/hearing_aids/ I can't give you references in french, german, spanish etc. because I am not fluent enough to find them and I might send you somewhere inappropriate ) 77.97.161.230 09:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)mikeL

MikeL, I think you misunderstand me, I agree with you that the article is US centric. These two sections, in and out of USA are both unreferenced anyway, and should be removed if no one supplies referances soon. DCwom 12:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• In a small attempt to compensate for the US bias, I added a (referenced!) note about the situation in the UK. That now sits uncomfortably in the section about US practice so I'll move it now. Whilst I agree that the current version is unbalanced, I do think that information about different arrangements for supplying hearing aids across the globe is relevant and should be retained. What's needed is a thorough edit of these two sections, not just a simple deletion. Kahuzi 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed unrefered section on sales. DCwom 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs Many More Refs

This article contains both technical and medical related information, and therefore needs many more references. Currently the article is somewhere between a tutorial and a sales brochure. The article is also too long for an encyclopedia, there is too much detail about the particilars of each instrument type. DCwom 13:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Modulate

According to the introduction hearing aids are used to "amplify and modulate" sounds. My understanding is that they selectively amplify (and perhaps attenuate) different frequencies to different degrees in much the same way as a recording sound engineer or an electric guitar player does with an equaliser. It is misleading to use the word 'modulate'. In engineering modulation refers to modifying a carrier wave in some way to carry information. 77.97.161.230 (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)mikeL

I was also confused by the term modulate and agree that it should be removed. (Brenwah (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)).

Concha/pinna

In the ITE section it states that "These devices fit in the outer ear bowl (called the concha or pinna)". Is it too pedantic to say that "concha" is the name of the outer ear bowl, whereas "pinna" refers to the whole of the ear outside the skull, and should this be amended? --81.159.138.215 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is important to be both accurate and accessible. Sometimes, that is challenging. Why don't you give it a go? Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag on new section dealing with US regulation of hearing aids

The new section on US regulations seems overly detailed with its many complex citations of legal cases and specific state and federal regulations. It seems likely to over-complicate a reader's decision to purchase a hearing aid, especially by mail; and also likely to make him uneasy about making such a decision. The repetition of the vaguely threatening phrase "restricted devices" makes hearing aids sound rather dangerous - in one place, the writer calls them Class I "restricted devices", but in fact the FDA defines Class I devices as "those presenting the least risk". Per the FDA, "Restricted devices are the subset of FDA-regulated devices over which FDA has advertising jurisdiction. They include, for example, hearing aids, certain types of contact lenses and diagnostic tests, and many types of high-risk devices." Not so scary now, eh?

The section seems out of balance with the rest of the article. I recommend that it be removed entirely, or stripped down to a few basic facts, such as that the FDA controls the advertising and sale of hearing aids, that state regulations may vary (without citing the most onerous), and a simple NPOV summary of the FDA rules on buying a hearing aid, no more and no less. --CliffC (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the link on the Hearing Aids page to Healthy Hearing

Regarding on "What to link" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL The site Healthy Hearing has an in depth collection of articles, common questions, and user guides that cover in depth not only aspects of hearing aids, but hearing loss in general. Additionally, a comprehensive funding guide is available free of charge to help persons who have hearing loss and need hearing aids. The site is staffed by audiologists and professional writers who have expertise in teaching and writing about hearing loss and hearing aids http://www.healthyhearing.com/about - The site is also the only official site selected by Google News to cover the topic of hearing loss and hearing aids. Therefore, the ongoing news and articles (example) http://www.healthyhearing.com/articles/42690-care-for-hearing-aids that are beyond the scope of what a Wikipedia article would typically cover. This is in connection with "Such links could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

The site does contain advertising, but this is no different than your local newspaper website. It has independent news and information about a topic, but it has to generate ad revenue. Healthy Hearing is really like the national USA Today for hearing loss and hearing aids. I am assuming that this is why the link is in question - but it would mean that on a Wikipedia article on Newspapers that you could not create wiki pages on those newspapers nor could you link to those newspaper websites as examples.

If you take the time to read through the articles, news releases, the consumer guides and the common questions, you will see what I am talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.216.178 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment above was copied from User talk:Wsiegmund.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2009 Do (UTC)

I regularly trim external links from articles that appear to have an excess. Too many links make it difficult for the reader to find the ones that are the most helpful. Commercial articles are often suspect because some companies see Wikipedia as a way to advertise their products. May I ask if you have a connection to http://www.healthyhearing.com/ or a financial interest in the products advertised there? I need to ask because of WP:COI and I think it best to be direct about such matters. I note that American Hearing Research Foundation covers related news, but I agree that Healthy Hearing is more thorough.[2]. The advertising on the Healthy Hearing site does not prevent it from being linked, but it is a concern and should be discussed. Are you the anonymous editor that edit warred on October 7 to restore the link?[3] Edit warring should be avoided. It is better to bring disputes to the talk page so that it can be discussed and resolved. If it is decided to keep the link, then you can cite the discussion in your edit summary when you restore it. Thank you for pointing out the qualifications of the editorial team of the site. That is a point in its favor. Regarding "Take Care of Your Hearing Aids", please consider adding content based on that source to the article with an appropriate footnote. That will make it easy for the reader to find the source article and learn more. Inline links to footnotes are encouraged and rarely removed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In the ear hearing aids

I get the impression that "in the ear" hearing aids are essentially restricted to hearing losses of "up to" -35 db, because of battery size. But would need a good reference.

Also shells stink for listening in front of a person. There are good reasons to use in the ear, besides vanity. They use your ear as a collector and a person can hear better than someone with a shell. If this isn't here, it should be IMO. Student7 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@Student7: Your understanding of "in the ear" is based on old technology. I am an audiologist with a severe to profound hearing loss and use completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids which output up to 132 dB SPL. I'm not exactly sure where you are going with your second point, but that sounds a lot like an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.196.146.74 (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The image is showing a behind the ear hearing aid but is labeled as an in the ear hearing aid.Ajohnsonaud (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Historical context?

I can't see anything in the article to set it in a historical context; it's all "older", "earliest", "recent" and "today"- terms which are essentially meaningless. When was the first hearing aid developed? When did the behind the ear ones get invented? There's no timeline at all, no sense of how one thing developed into the next over a period of years. For all I know, they could all have been developed at the same time. There's a line about "the late 1950s through 1970s, before in-the-ear aids became common" and that's the only place I can see anything like a date. (I know nothing about hearing aids, and I wandered over here looking for when they were first developed.) MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a big-picture timeline here, starting with the ear trumpet in the early 1700s. Similar page here. For anyone with time to expand the article, or just the curious, see Deafness in Disguise: Concealed Hearing Devices of the 19th and 20th Centuries (NSFW, includes scantily-clad 1940s ladies with aids strapped to their legs). --CliffC (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Songbird Hearing

I contacted the Songbird Hearing people, who turn out to be an ordering service with little or no knowledge of audiology or hearing aid technology. This product is not a true hearing aid, but an across-the board amplifier at all frequencies (and not a very flat response. either, according to their PDF chart). Furthermore, it is not a disposable unit as claimed in the article, but uses batteries like other consumer devices. The current price is $495 per ear, which is high for this very basic functionality as compared with similar advertised devices. For all these reasons, the device should not be mentioned in Wikipedia in contexts in which it does not belong. David Spector (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

History section?

This article could use a good History section. Misty MH (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Added a history section using the lead from History of hearing aids. Feel free to improve it. pgr94 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Undefined acronyms

Several acronyms are used in this article but are undefined. A few examples are: CIC, ITC, and MIC. It looks like they were once defined but the article has been trimmed too much and now that information is missing. Could someone please replace the missing information and make sure that all acronyms are defined at least once? Thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed!

The articles states that interference is rare for hearing loop systems, but gives no source for that claim. I feel this is quite misleading. Interference is in fact a big problem. See for example http://www.emaa.com.au/documents/accessdocs/AFILS_Info_Sheet.pdf which states "If there are other loop systems close by, the problem of overlap of sound must be addressed. This is a serious problem if the auditoria are next to or above one another. There are various ways to resolve this overlap but consult the experts while the design is still in its early stage. There are many unsatisfactory audio-magnetic loop installations. It is an area for the specialist, rather than the average electrical consultant or contractor. Consultation may be necessary at the early design stage as well as when the building is under construction." Unfortunately, much of the information publicly available about loop systems is put out by people who have a financial incentive to promote the use of such systems, even when cheaper alternatives would be better for people whose hearing is impaired. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Digital Hearing Aid

There is a great deal of overlap between Digital Hearing Aid and this article; much of what isn't covered here in that new article is WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, often referenced by product pages. I propose that we merge it here. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

merge no reason for separate articles. Deunanknute (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• merge with heavy trimming and consolidation. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Merge. It had been speedy deleted as duplicate page of hearing aid(I had posted the speedy tag); not sure if that would apply again or not; but it should at least be merged/redirected. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Merge. It looks like this is one of several articles written by a paid editor, likely to promote one specific product. I've given the editor a COI warning, accordingly. That aside, I can't see where this really needs to have a completely separate page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done Klbrain (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Hearing aid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080222003941/http://varibel.nl:80/site/home/default.asp to http://varibel.nl/site/home/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080216165527/http://www.tr.is:80/english to http://www.tr.is/english
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101002061033/http://www.rnid.org.uk:80/VirtualContent/101701/NHS_hearing_aid_service_September_2009.pdf to http://www.rnid.org.uk/VirtualContent/101701/NHS_hearing_aid_service_September_2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hearing aid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101206172236/http://www.tiaonline.org/news_events/press_room/press_releases/2007/press-1175779463784.cfm to http://www.tiaonline.org/news_events/press_room/press_releases/2007/press-1175779463784.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hearing aid/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I consider the hearing aid page to be overall quite well balanced. (OPINION:NO REFERENCE) The section on the USA is pertinent for those in the USA(OPINION:NO REFERENCE). While discussing the neutrality of a wikipedia entry is pertinent and necessary to preserve the integrity of the Wikipedia system, sometimes it may appear to others to be extreme nitpicking.The section on the USA( I live in the USA) is pertinent to those of us who live here, and is useful information to me. It seems to properly quote Federal Law. Perhaps putting the references to the law below and linking the actual text of the Federal rules from offsite would be useful instead of quoting them directly in the article. Those who wish to follow the link offsite can then read the actual Federal law. This Federal information is useful to me, and I would think to other people.(OPINION:NO REFERENCE). I have a background in communications electronics among other things and am a hearing aid user. I have worked with a certified and licensed Doctor of Audiology while fitting my hearing aids, and in my opinion, expanding the section on the programming of digital hearing aids and the equipment that is necessary to do that in detail would show people how complex they are and the many critical elements in fitting a hearing aid. Before one can fit a hearing aid, a full audiometric test must be done. Some description on how that is done, in detail, will be useful to those who are investigating the purchase of a hearing aid. Also the accomodation people go through adjusting to them over time should be documented. More detail would then allow people to form their own conclusion rather than rely on someone's opinion. And if a Certified/Licensed individual from any country can write an article on everything that goes into programming digital hearing aids in general and adjusting(tuning)the elements of the hearing aid assembly to the individual users ear, and all the tools needed to do that, and what factually does happen if this is not done properly would show people how complex it is. Then people can make their choice based upon information. I would consider such a modification to the site to be justified. As I am not certified/licensed in the specialty and have only my experience with general electronics and having hearing aids fitted, others with more qualifications should write that kind of information. I trust these OPINIONS might be of some use to those working on the site. your continued interest and hard work in creating a wikipedia entry on the subject of hearing aids is appreciated. Rfarc (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC) 11-15-2008 rfarc.

Last edited at 06:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 17:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

In section seven of the Hearing aid page, the information about rechargeable batteries does not reflect the advancements over the past few years in rechargeable hearing aid battery technology. Here is the information in question:

"While there are some rare instances that a hearing aid uses a rechargeable battery or a long-life disposable battery, the majority of modern hearing aids use one of five standard button cell zinc–air batteries."

Suggested copy changes:

"Within the past several years, major advancements in rechargeable hearing aid battery technology have resulted in nearly every major hearing aid manufacturer now offering a rechargeable battery option using either silver zinc chemistry or lithium ion chemistry. These batteries are powerful enough to support the wireless streaming capabilities of modern hearing aids while also providing an all-day charge."

Here are links to the various rechargeable hearing aids currently on the market:

Silver Zinc:

http://www.starkey.com/hearing-aids/rechargeable-hearing-aids http://unitron.com/content/unitron/global/en/professional/hearing-solutions/tempus.html#FitR-2 https://www.beltonene.com/zpower_rechargeable_hearing_aids.html https://www.oticon.com/inside-oticon/news/news/2017/april-4-2017---opn-rechargeable http://www.nuear.com/hearing-aids/technologies/now-wireless-hearing-aids

Lithium Ion:

https://www.phonak.com/us/en/about-us/rechargeable-os-technology.html https://www.sivantos.com/en/press/2016/07/05/sivantos-unveils-the-worlds-most-advanced-lithium-ion-inductive-rechargeable-hearing-aid/

If these citations are too commercial, here is the link to an article in a trade publication about rechargeable hearing aid options:

https://www.hearingtracker.com/blog/rechargeable-hearing-aids-a-look-at-the-options-for-2017/

MPierson (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

None of the refs are really suitable. This book[4] comments how uncommon recharagle batteries are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Marking as declined for needing better sources. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hearing aid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222003941/http://varibel.nl/site/home/default.asp to http://varibel.nl/site/home/default.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www6.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-hear-understanding

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hearing aid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160509173040/https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/hearingaid.asp to http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/hearingaid.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hearing aid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141225213446/http://www.radugazvukov.ru/information/articles/detail.php?article=3371 to http://www.radugazvukov.ru/information/articles/detail.php?article=3371

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Differences digital/analogue

"Analogue hearing aids amplify (makes louder) all the sounds picked up by the microphone" - not true, I am sure many analogue devices had something like an an Equalization (audio) and/or Equalization (communications) as well as some more filters. Similarly "This allows amplifying the sounds of certain frequency" is not something that analogue devices were incapable of doing. Neither is frequency range compression a groundbreaking technology that would be in any way difficult to do with an analogue device. Feedback reduction? The same.. and so on. 2.247.252.86 (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This page is a mess.

Hey folks,

I'm trying to improve this page - there is a ton of outdated, flat out incorrect information, and badly sourced information.

Jytdog is removing my edits but has left up most of the article that is poorly sourced or incorrect. I am happy to provide more sources, but if edits are going to be removed for source issues, please delete all information on the page that is not sourced or poorly sourced.

Thank you, Sigsaly (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)siglsaly

Much of what you did was great. Thanks for that! I removed edits that were unsourced or badly sourced. I left the rest. Please use WP:MEDRS sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Error in the digital signal flow diagram

Hello

There is a minor error in the "Block diagram of digital hearing aid" signal flow diagram. I'm rather new to wikipedia and have no idea how to help fix an image of a diagram. The error is the process block labelled "Flattering Filter" - it should be "Flattening Filter" or even better "Gain Flattening Filter"

I'm a retired engineer and have knowledge of signal processing, so I feel qualified to point out this error.

Thank you SmokeyVW (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I created a new SVG version of the diagram and switched it in here. SmokeyVW (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lyric - Ear.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Over-the-counter hearing aids, United States

Noting that a JAMA article was published recently related to this topic: see https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2799343 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Hearing device

Hearing device redirects here, but I think this is not quite correct. Hearing assist devices were also inside the early telephones and are not discussed here. Wuerzele (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)