Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Comparison of two digitally programmable hearing aids.

T A Ricketts1, R A Bentler

  • 1University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242.

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
|March 1, 1992
PubMed
Summary

Comparing hearing aids, the Widex Quattro and Ensoniq Sound Selector showed minimal differences in user benefits. Experienced users favored Ensoniq, while new users preferred Quattro, indicating varied perceptions of hearing aid performance.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Programmable Hearing Aid Review.

American journal of audiology·2015
Same author

Satisfaction With Noise Reduction Circuits.

American journal of audiology·2015
Same author

From the editor.

Trends in amplification·2014
Same author

From the editor.

Trends in amplification·2014
Same author

From the editor.

Trends in amplification·2014
Same author

Directional hearing AIDS.

Trends in amplification·2014

Area of Science:

  • Audiology
  • Hearing Instrument Technology

Background:

  • Two hearing instruments, Widex Quattro and Ensoniq Sound Selector, were compared.
  • Ensoniq designers advocate for wideband hearing aids for all situations.
  • Quattro designers propose multiple frequency responses for varied listening needs.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare Widex Quattro and Ensoniq Sound Selector hearing instruments.
  • Evaluate benefits (real and perceived) and convenience.
  • Assess performance across different user groups and listening conditions.

Main Methods:

  • Subjective measures using the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP), including the Ease of Communication subtest.
  • Objective performance measures.
  • Comparison between new and experienced hearing aid users.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Subjective measures showed little overall differentiation between the two hearing aids.
  • New users perceived Quattro as better performing; experienced users favored Ensoniq.
  • Objective measures indicated performance differences, potentially influenced by fitting strategies.

Conclusions:

  • User experience and hearing aid fitting strategies significantly impact perceived benefits.
  • The choice between wideband and multi-memory hearing aids may depend on user experience and specific listening needs.