Cunningham Dr

Extra-high frequency hearing loss and hyperlipidemia.

Auditory thresholds in the extra-high frequency (EHF) range (10-18 kHz) were determined for twenty normal and twenty hyperlipidemic subjects. Subjects all passed a standard frequency auditory screening; all were otologically normal; all were aged between 20 and 50 years; none had a positive history of noise exposure. Modest, although significant, relationships were found between serum lipid levels and EHF acuity. Right ear thresholds and thresholds at 14 kHz showed the larger differences between the normals and hyperlipidemics

Study finds use of Live Speech Mapping reduces follow-up visits and saves money

“Time is money.” Every clinician knows the truth of this axiom. We all strive to provide high-quality service in a limited time frame. The essential question is, how can we save time and maintain professional quality care? This report will describe a hearing aid fitting/verification technology that we began using in our practice some 18 months ago. This technology has reduced the number of post-fitting, follow-up visits and lowered our practice costs. Before discussing our new approach to fitting and verification, we will describe how we used to accomplish this task. We routinely used standard probe-mic (realear) measurements to adjust electroacoustic parameters in order to reach targets prescribed by fitting formulas (NAL-NL1, DSL i/o, etc.). Typically, this involved measuring REAR (real-ear aided response) for soft, average, and loud inputs then running an RESR (real-ear saturation response) to be certain that the patient’s UCL (uncomfortable loudness level) was not violated. The problems with this strategy were twofold: (1) The measurements were made with either tonal or noise stimuli rather than actual speech, and (2) the patient did not seem to comprehend and fully appreciate the significance of these tests. We explained the simple black and white REAR/RESR printouts, but patients had some difficulty relating the data to the audibility of actual speech. Using these same techniques to demonstrate the effects of multi-channel processing, multiple memories, or directional microphones appeared to leave patients more baffled than informed. Even if they could hear the differences produced by these features, they were not witness to them in a visual sense. Our measurements were precise, but they were not intuitive from the patient’s perspective.

Despite high risk of hearing loss, many percussionists play unprotected

Our research team took advantage of a “sample of convenience” to study the hearing of nearly 400 amateur and professional percussionists who attended the Percussive Arts Society International Conventions (PASIC) in Louisville, KY (2003) and Nashville, TN (2004). The Percussive Arts Society had offered its members hearing screenings for a number of years prior to our work, but it granted us wider access to the conventioneers for the purpose of conducting three projects. The main findings are summarized in this article. When research is conducted on a sample of convenience, there is some risk that only those who suspect they have a problem (in this case, hearing loss) will volunteer as subjects, thus skewing the data. In an attempt to avoid this problem and increase the heterogeneity of the sample, volunteers were given a pair of Etymotic ER-15 musicianquality hearing protection devices (HPDs) and told they might be chosen for a “special test that could detect early damage to the inner ear” (otoacoustic emissions) as inducements to participate.