MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2330020522 · doi:10.1097/01.hj.0000286211.30975.b7

Open-canal fittings

2006· article· en· W2330020522 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
David H. Kirkwood

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Hearing Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDelphi Technique in Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEnthusiasmSkepticismProduct (mathematics)PsychologyAudiologyMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

FigureIn the 16 years I've been covering the hearing industry, I've never seen as much enthusiasm over a new product type as there is today over open-canal hearing aids. Whether I'm speaking with audiologists and hearing instrument specialists who've been fitting patients since the 1970s or young practitioners so new to the profession they've never dispensed an analog device, many are saying that these new mini-BTEs—especially the ones that leave the ear canal open—are generating more user satisfaction than anything they've ever seen. Even better, what I'm hearing and what various surveys are finding is that many dispensers are convinced that OC instruments are bringing a new crop of consumers into the marketplace, younger people with less severe hearing losses. BUT WHAT ARE THE FACTS? Yet, no matter how positive the anecdotal reports may be about any innovation in hearing aids, experience tells us to view them with a healthy dose of skepticism. Sometimes what looked great at the start turns out to be as good as it seemed—or even better. On the other hand, reality often falls short of initial hopes. The goal of this special issue of HJ was to determine the realities of open-canal hearing aids and how to derive optimal patient benefit from them. Obviously, this was a demanding mission—one that would require a lot of work by many people. But first came the easy part—finding the right guest editor. That was my job, and what made it so easy was that the right person to quarterback this issue was none other than our contributing editor, Gus Mueller. He brought to the assignment an extraordinary expertise in amplification combined with an unmatched ability to recruit outstanding contributors. Together, they have conducted a careful, objective, evidence-based analysis of the salient issues related to this emerging category of hearing aid. As most of you know, a key reason that open-canal fittings have become much more viable than they were in the pre-DSP era is the advent of feedback-reduction algorithms. Our first contributing author, Vijay Parsa of the University of Western Ontario, assesses the effectiveness of these algorithms with open fittings. Knowing how to fit OC instruments is essential to providing users with optimal benefit. To that end, Gus Mueller and his Vanderbilt colleague, Todd Ricketts, offer ten “take-home tips” on this subject. Their comprehensive article could serve as a manual to keep handy whenever you do this kind of fitting. Another key question is how well does directional technology perform in open-canal hearing aids. Ruth Bentler and two of her doctoral students at the University of Iowa—Yu-Hsiang Wu and Julie Jeon—present the latest information regarding that issue, including results of their own research. Overcoming the occlusion effect is probably the most-touted benefit of open-canal fittings, but just how well do they do that? Douglas MacKenzie of the State University of New York at Geneseo reports on a study he conducted to find out. By now, there is a great amount of real-world experience with these fittings to draw upon. Several of our authors have done that. Earl Johnson, a PhD student at Vanderbilt, uses the results of a nationwide survey of dispensers to find out how they and their patients feel about these products. David Gnewikow, a Vanderbilt faculty member, and Meredith Moss, an AuD student, unveil the results of a study in which hundreds of subjects were fitted, alternately, with OC and closed-canal instruments and then given various measures of satisfaction. Finally, Brian Taylor of Amplifon USA shares the findings of two surveys—one for new users and one for experienced wearers—that compared the benefits and satisfaction derived from open- and closed-canal fittings. YOU'LL LIKE WHAT YOU READ This special issue offers a comprehensive, up-to-date, and authoritative review of the most exciting development in hearing aids in many years. And, while I don't want to give anything away, I think you'll be pleased to learn that, based on the evidence so far, open-canal hearing aids may be one of the rare developments in which the reality lives up to the hype.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,257
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,860

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0040,004
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,2570,109

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,198
Tête enseignante GPT0,481
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Hearing JournalMême sujetDelphi Technique in ResearchTravaux en français237 207