Background: Individuals fitted with hearing aids complain of the unnatural sound quality of their voice, other internally generated sounds such as chewing and swallowing sounds “hollow”, “muffled” sounds. Receiver-In-Canal hearing aids are favored due to small size, discrete appearance and ability to minimize occlusion. Aim: To compare the performance of Receiver-In-Canal (RIC) to traditional ear tip (ET), ear moulds (EM) fittings using Functional gain measures. Method: Ten subjects with flat moderately severe sensori neural hearing loss participated in the study. Subjective unaided and aided measures for digital BTE hearing aids with ear tip, ear mould or Receiver-In-Canal for pure tones of 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, 4000 Hz were obtained. Results and Discussion: Higher scores were obtained with Receiver-In-Canal fitting on Functional gain measures. No significant difference between all the three conditions was obtained at low frequencies especially at 500 Hz, as Receiver-In-Canal hearing aids attenuate low frequency sounds automatically when the ear is left open (up to 30 dB less amplification at 500 Hz) especially for hearing in noisy situations. Conclusion: The results suggest that Receiver-In-Canal fittings are an effective means of overcoming the major barriers to the acceptance of amplification and further suggest the clinical importance of subjective measures in measuring aided benefit of open-fit devices in the rehabilitation of person’s with moderately severe to severe SN hearing loss.
Cite this paper
S. Prakash, R. Aparna, S. Rathna Kumar, T. Madhav, K. Ashritha and K. Navyatha, "Sensori-Neural Hearing Loss Client’s Performance with Receiver-In-Canal (RIC) Hearing Aids," International Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2013, pp. 68-73. doi: 10.4236/ijohns.2013.22017.
 H. G. Mueller, K. E. Bright and J. L. Northern, “Studies of the Hearing Aid Occlusion Effect,” Seminars in Hearing, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1996, pp. 21-32. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1089925
 F. Kuk and C. Ludvigsen, “Ampclusion Management 101: Understanding Variables,” Hearing Review, Vol. 9, No. 8, 2002, pp. 22-32. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1089925
 S. W. Painton, “Objective Measure of Low-Frequency Amplification Reduction in Canal Hearing Aids with Adaptive Circuitry,” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1993, pp. 152-156.
 M. C. Killion, L. A. Wilber ans G. I. Gudmundsen, “A Potential Solution for the “Hollow Voice” Problem (the Amplified Occlusion Effect) with Deeply Sealed Earmolds,” Hearing Instruments, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1988, pp. 14-18.
 H. G. Mueller, “Page Ten: There’s Less Talking in Barrels, but the Occlusion Effect is Still with Us,” Hearing Journal, Vol. 56, No. 8, 2003, pp. 10-16.
 D. J. MacKenzie, H. G. Mueller, T. A. Ricketts and D. F. Konkle, “The Hearing Aid Occlusion Effect: A Comparison of Two Measurement Devices,” Hearing Journal, Vol. 57, No. 9, 2004, pp. i30-i39.
 H. Dillon, G. Birtles and R. Lovegrove, “Measuring the Outcomes of a National Rehabilitation Program: Normative Data for the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and the Hearing Aid User’s Questionnaire (HAUQ),” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999, pp. 67-79.
 H. Dillon, “Hearing Aids: Hearing Aid Earmolds, Earshells, and Coupling Systems,” Boomerang Press, Sydney, 2001.
 J. Kiessling, S. Margolf-Hackl and S. Gellar, “Field Test of an Occlusion-Free Hearing Instrument,” GN ReSound White Paper, 2001.
 R. W. Sweetow and C. W. Pirzanski, “The Occlusion Effect and Ampclusion Effect,” Seminars in Hearing, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2003, pp. 333-344. doi:10.1055/s-2004-815549
 K. Durrer, “Critical Review: In Individuals with Sensorineural Hearing Loss, Are There Benefits of OpenCanal Hearing Aid Fittings Relative to Those of Traditional Fittings?” Candidate School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 2008.
 D. Gnewikow and M. Moss, “Hearing Aid Outcomes with Openand ClosedCanal Fittings,” The Hearing Journal, Vol. 59, No. 11, 2006, pp. 66-72.
 H. G. Mueller and T. A. Ricketts, “Open-Canal Fittings: Ten Take Home Tips,” Hearing Journal, Vol. 59, No. 11, 2006, pp. 24-39.
 E. E. Johnson, “Segmenting Dispensers: Factors in Selecting Open-Canal Fittings,” Hearing Journal, Vol. 59, No. 11, 2006, pp. 58-64.
 L. Christensen and G. Matsui, “Hearing Aid Satisfaction with ReSound Air,” GN Resound White Paper, 2003.
 B. Taylor, “Real-World Satisfaction and Benefit with Open-Canal Fittings,” Hearing Journal, Vol. 59, No. 11, 2006, pp. 74-82.
 V. Parsa, “Acoustic Feedback and Its Reduction through Digital Signal Processing,” The Hearing Journal, Vol. 59, No. 11, 2006, pp. 16-23.
 American National Standards Institute, “Specifications for Pure Tone Audiometers (ANSI S 3.6-1969),” Author, New York, 1970.
 American Speech and Hearing Association, “Guidelines for Manual Pure-Tone Threshold Audiometery,” ASHA, Vol. 20, 1978, pp. 297-301.
 L. N. Alworth, P. N. Plyer, M. N. Rebert and P. M. Johnstone, “The Effect of Receiver Placement on Probe Microphone Performance and Subjective Measures with Open Canal Hearing Instruments,” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2010, pp. 249-266.
 T. S. Griffing and D. P. Preves, “In-the-Ear Aids, Part I,” Hearing Instruments, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1976, pp. 22-24.
 K. Chung, A. Neuman and M. Higgins, “Effects of InThe-Ear Microphone Directionality on Sound Direction Identification,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 123, No. 4, 2005, pp. 2264-2275.
 T. Van den Bogaert, E. Carette and J. Wouters, “Sound Source Localization Using Hearing Aids with Microphones Placed Behind-The-Ear, in-the-Canal, and in-thePinna,” International Journal of Audiology, Vol. 50, No. 3, 2011, pp. 164-176.
 R. M. Cox and G. C. Alexander, “Acoustic versus Electronic Modifications of Hearing Aid Low Frequency Output,” Ear and Hearing, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1983, pp. 190-196.doi:10.1097/00003446-198307000-00003
 W. Otto, “Evaluation of an Open Canal Hearing Aid by Experienced Users,” Hearing Journal, Vol. 58, No. 8, 2005, pp. 26-32.
 F. Kuk, M. Keenan and C. Ludvigsen, “Efficacy of an Open-Fitting Hearing Aid,” Hearing Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2005, pp. 26-32.
 J. Kiessling, B. Brenner, C. T. Jespersen, et al., “Occlusion Effect of Earmolds with Different Venting Systems,” Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2005, pp. 237-249. doi:10.3766/jaaa.16.4.5
 D. Hawkins, “Limitations and Uses of Aided Audiogram,” Seminars in Hearing, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2004, pp. 51-62. doi:10.1055/s-2004-823047