A wide variety of hearing aid units are known in the art. Insertion of hearing aid receivers in the ear produces an insertion loss, which reflects a distortion or elimination of the patient's natural or original concha and ear canal resonant characteristics. The presently described hearing aid is configured to eliminate or significantly reduce such insertion losses.
In some hearing aids, the receiver is also positioned within the ear canal in such a way that it creates an occlusion effect. In most cases, whether the hearing aid is fitted in the ear, as with a custom made instrument, or is placed behind the ear, an occlusion problem exists.
This is often related to a patient's rejection of the amplification due to the patient's discomfort with the patient's own voice. That is, the occlusion effect is associated with the sensation or feeling that the patient's head is “at the bottom of the barrel,” with the patient's own voice becoming intolerably loud.
Placing an earmold or a shell of a custom made hearing aid within the ear canal can produce a low frequency amplification of the patient's voice of between about 20 and 30 decibels. This can relate to a perceived loudness increase in the patient's own voice of about four times the actual loudness of the patient's voice.
Accordingly, there remains a need in the art for an ear canal receiver that avoids the insertion loss and occlusion effect problems described above.
One aspect of the present disclosure also relates to an improved system for treating tinnitus.
The above-discussed and other drawbacks and deficiencies of the prior art are overcome or alleviated by the presently described hearing aid system, including a receiver configured so as to create an insertion loss over the audible range of hearing below about three decibels as compared to the unaided ear.
In another embodiment, a micro-receiver positioned in an open-ear configuration within the ear canal of a user, and a sound processing unit provided remote from the micro-receiver. The described hearing aid advantageously reduces the insertion and occlusion effects.
In one exemplary embodiment, the receiver has a maximum lateral dimension ø. Such dimension describes the maximum overall dimension or diameter (though it is not to be implied that the cross section of the receiver must be circular or oval) of the receiver. In one exemplary embodiment, the receiver has a dimension ø that is less than half the maximum lateral dimension or diameter of the user's ear canal. In another embodiment, the receiver has a dimension ø that is less than twenty percent of the maximum lateral dimension or diameter of the user's ear canal. In another embodiment, the receiver has a dimension ø that is less than ten percent of the maximum lateral dimension or diameter of the user's ear canal. In another embodiment, the receiver has a dimension ø that is less than five percent of the maximum lateral dimension or diameter of the user's ear canal.
In another exemplary embodiment, the hearing aid comprises a sound processing unit, a receiver, and an intermediate connecting portion between the sound processing unit and the receiver, wherein the intermediate connecting portion comprises an electrical conducting component and a stiffening wire, provided on at least a portion of the intermediate connecting portion. In another exemplary embodiment, the stiffening wire comprises a stainless steel wire. In another exemplary embodiment, the stiffening wire comprises a metal or alloy of metals having memory such that the wire may deflect and return to an original orientation. Such may be stainless steel, among others. Such may also be a shape memory alloy.
In another exemplary embodiment, the stiffening wire is provided within or on a portion of the intermediate connecting portion and extends within or on at least a portion of the receiver. In such embodiment, the receiver is positioned on the intermediate connecting portion with greater stability and resiliency. Also where a stiffening element is used, the intermediate connecting portion and receiver may be custom manufactured or custom molded to optimize positioning of the receiver within the ear canal and/or to optimize positioning of the intermediate connecting portion.
In another embodiment, a retaining wire extends from one of the stiffening wire and the receiver. The retaining wire is configured to position within a portion of the concha of the ear. In such embodiment, the retaining wire may be configured to prevent excessive insertion of the hearing aid receiver into the ear canal. Also, the retaining wire may be configured to cause the hearing aid receiver to be suspended within a portion of the ear canal, such that no portion of the receiver touches the sides of the ear canal.
In another embodiment, the electrical conducting component comprises two wires within distinct channels or otherwise isolated from one another within the intermediate connecting portion. In another embodiment, a stiffening element is provided within or on the intermediate connecting portion within a distinct channel or otherwise isolated from the wires.
In another embodiment, the receiver comprises a speaker, at least partially enclosed within a casing having first and second end portions, the first end portion communicating with the intermediate connecting portion, the speaker communicating with a port provided at the second end portion of the casing. In another embodiment, the casing is sealed to fluids at the first end portion and along a length of the casing extending from the first end portion to the port provided at the second end portion. The port may also be sealed to fluids by a membrane or mesh material.
The above-discussed and other features and advantages of the present invention will be appreciated and understood by those skilled in the art from the following detailed description and drawings.
Referring now to the exemplary drawings wherein like elements are numbered alike in the several FIGURES:
Referring now to
Referring now to
Referring again to
Referring again to
With reference to
Referring again to
Referring again to
Referring now to
Referring now to
The following table summarizes statistical analysis of data collected in the comparison of four hearing devices (G=General Hearing Instruments, O=Oticon, S=Sebotek and V=Vivatone). The tested Vivatone Device was configured in accordance with the above described embodiment(s) including the micro-receiver and the retaining wire. The Vivatone Device also was positioned within the cartilaginous region of the ear in such a manner that the receiver did not contact the walls of the ear canal.
The tested General Hearing Instruments was a canal-open-ear Auriscoe™ hearing aid. The tested Oticon Device was a low profile, Open Ear Acoustics™ configuration. The tested Sebotek Device was the PAC (Post Auricular Canal) hearing aid also described by U.S. Pat. No. 5,606,621 to Reiter, the entire contents of which are specifically incorporated herein by reference.
Thirty subjects participated in the evaluation. There were 120 runs, 4 for each participant. The data analyzed are the values of the Probe Real Ear Insertion Response Curve, which consisted of differences between the Probe Real Ear Unaided Response Curve and the Probe Real Ear Aided Response Curve and the corresponding values repeated while the subject vocalized the letter “EE”. The two differences may be called the Insertion Effect and the Occlusion Effect. Values were given at 79 frequencies (200 Hz to 8000 Hz at increments of 100 Hz).
Analysis of variance models were run for each frequency. Comparisons were adjusted for Subject variability, Order of Test, and Previous Device. The experimental error ranged over approximately 5-11 DB for the Insertion Effect and over approximately 3-8 DB for the Occlusion Effect.
Comparison results are given in the following tables. Results are given for each frequency. T-values greater than 2.444 in absolute value are included in Table 1. T-values less than 2.444 values are not to be construed as statistically insignificant simply because thay are omitted from Table 1. Negative values indicate that the Insertion Effect or Occlusion Effect was greater for the Comparison Device compared to the Vivatone Device. Positive values indicate that the Insertion Effect or Occlusion Effect was greater for the Vivatone Device compared to the Comparison Device.
The following table summarizes the comparisons at each frequency. Table values are positive or negative decibel differences. As may be seen from the tables, the Vivatone Device exhibits lower Insertion Effect across the range of frequencies as compared with the comparison devices. Indeed, it has been found that the Vivatone Device exhibits less than three decibels of insertion loss across the audible spectrum. Also, with exception of the Oticon Device in the 500 Hz to 1300 Hz range, the Vivatone device exhibits lower Occlusion Effect across the range of frequencies as compared with the comparison devices.
While exemplary embodiments have been shown and described, various modifications and substitutions may be made thereto without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, it is to be understood that the present invention has been described by way of illustration and not limitation.
The present application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/445,034, filed Feb. 5, 2003, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/514,994, filed Oct. 27, 2003, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/535,569, filed Jan. 9, 2004, the entire contents of which are specifically incorporated herein by reference.
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60445034 | Feb 2003 | US | |
| 60514994 | Oct 2003 | US | |
| 60535569 | Jan 2004 | US |