It’s Ba-ack!
I just finished reading the latest issue of Hearing Health magazine and found it both interesting and reader friendly. But something was missing: the “Mailbag” page. I hope my letter will help reinstate the page and at the same time encourage other readers to write in with their comments.
Barbara Liss Chertok
Board Member
American Hearing Research Foundation
Ms. Chertok,
We have been missing “Mailbag” too. We enjoy hearing from our readers and your feedback is important to help us improve this magazine, making it even more useful for people with hearing loss and balance disorders and also for hearing health professionals. I welcome readers’ letters as well as brief opinion pieces to fill our mailbag and keep our magazine at its best.
Sincerely,
Donna L. Schillinger
Editor-in-Chief
Unintentional Endorsement?
As a member of the American Academy of Audiologists, I just received my first issue of Hearing Health magazine for my office. I am curious as to why your publication accepts advertisements from a mail-order company such as Lloyds. Do you really want to send the message that if you can order it on the Internet it must be good? If that is the case, why did I spend all those years and all that money becoming a doctor of audiology? I should have just opened a Web-based, mail-order hearing aid company.
Cordially,
Larry D. Waters, Au.D., CCC-A, F-AAA
Board Certified Doctor of Audiology
Editor’s Response:
We are aware of the controversy surrounding catalog and Internet sales of hearing instruments. In fact, a few years ago, we published an article entitled “Hearing Aids Online, Beyond the Price Tag” (Volume 19:3/Fall 2003, accessible online at www.drf.org/hearing_health/, then click on “Archives”).
As is common practice in publications of all sizes, revenue derived from advertisers is important in helping to defray the significant cost of producing the magazine. Our policy has always been that publishing an advertisement does not imply an endorsement of such product. This policy is now clearly stated on the table of contents page.
On the business end of the magazine, we have no reason to deny an advertisement to a well-established and reputable business. Lloyds has been in business for about 40 years and has a satisfactory record with the Better Business Bureau.
And on the editorial side, we hope our articles and department pages reflect our respect for the profession of audiology, which we intend to convey.
Bridging the Gulf
After my special respects to you and all members of DRF, I want to thank you so much for sending 10 copies of Hearing Health magazine. Our ENT specialists and the ENT department thank you. We now have contacts with different Web sites (found in Hearing Health) to acquire the new technologies in hearing science.
I have had repeated balance problems and have received several courses of medications. I am now slightly better. I hope to receive one hearing aid because I need it to support me in conversation when I teach university students.
Blend Sherko Fathullah
University of Salhaddin-Iraq
Video Competition Helps People with Disabilities
Almost half of American households now enjoy the high-speed, voice, video and data communications tool known as “broadband.” It is revolutionizing our lives. For the first time, people who are deaf, as I am, are able to engage in direct, two-way “phone calls” by signing to each other over Internet connections.
However, having access to broadband technologies is costly for many people. In most parts of the country, there is only one provider of broadband-delivered video: the cable company that owns the local franchise. But some of us, myself included, have video choice. Here on Long Island, I can choose between Cablevision and Verizon. As a result, my costs for this vital high-speed service are modest. In fact, I pay less for DSL today than I paid for dial-up service just a couple of years ago. That’s a real-life example of what market competition can do.
The benefits of full-fledged competition on a nationwide basis between the traditional telephone companies and the incumbent cable TV companies are compelling.
That’s why it is good news that the United States House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would foster robust competition between cable and telephone companies. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006, also known as the COPE Act, co-sponsored by House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton of Texas and Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois (the ranking Democrat on the committee), passed the House in a bipartisan vote by the striking margin of 321 to 101.
That is good news for consumers everywhere, but especially so for people like me because this bill contains helpful provisions for people with disabilities. For example, provisions of the bill would apply the same accessibility rules about products, services and equipment used for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calling – what most of us simply call Internet phone calling – which the Communications Act already requires for traditional phone systems. These provisions, coupled with the consumer savings created by more competition, certainly appeal to Americans with disabilities.
Here’s more good news: The Senate Commerce Committee turned out a bill that is in many ways even better. The Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act would also stimulate competition between cable companies and telephone companies. In addition, it would help to ensure continued funding for the Universal Service Fund, which keeps phone bills low in rural areas. The Senate bill contains better disability language than does the House-passed bill. As this is written, we are awaiting Senate-floor action. The full Senate is expected to debate its bill either in September or in a post-election session after November 6, 2006.
Dr. Frank Bowe
The Dr. Mervin Livingston Schloss Distinguished Professor
Hofstra University
New Technologies Encounter Same Old Problem
A very important, but often overlooked, dynamic in hearing aid success and failure is the crucial role played by the neurophysiology of the external auditory canal. Overlooking potentially sensitive neuroreflexes and the keratin layer that shields them too often causes persistent rates of return for credit, unnecessary remakes and uncountable in-office modifications to modern hearing aids.
I read with interest the recent article “Occlusion and Feedback vs. OE and RITE: May the acronyms win!” (Summer 2006). These new technologies represent an effort to avoid these physiological anomalies entirely. But at what cost? The acoustic couplers we’ve tested so far show that each time the instrument is removed from the ear it takes a sliver of the needed keratin layer with it.
So, even the more acoustically acceptable RITE devices (which place the receiver closer to the eardrum, effectively reducing feedback) that come with a three-sizes-fit-all coupler cause a problem with irritated ears after a time.
Otherwise, open ear configurations appear to have two problems: When in the ear, higher levels of high-frequency gain may be accompanied by some resonant distortion in sound and couplers drag keratin back out of the canal when removed.
Meanwhile, the larger number of hearing aid users with severe losses are still grappling with earmold adaptation problems that have yet to be seriously addressed by the industry. Within the coming year we will have new research on the importance of an undisturbed keratin layer to maintain homeostasis in ear health and its vital role to shield potentially troubling neuroreflexes (cough, gag, vascularization and lymphatic) from over sensitivity while wearing hearing aids.
It is hoped when all the data is in and published, consumers, professionals and the industry alike will begin to recognize and respect the dynamic processes of the external auditory canal. Hence, when observed and addressed, it just might be possible for today’s wonderful hearing technologies to adapt successfully to all configurations of amplification, even the occluding ones.
Max Stanley Chartrand
Director of Research
DigiCare Hearing Research & Rehabilitation
Showstoppers Bloopers
Some information in "Showstoppers" (Summer 2006) was incorrect. We thank Siemens Hearing Instruments and Starkey for providing this accurate information and accepting our humble apology.
Siemens' CENTRA™ Life, ACURIS™ Life, ARTIS™ Life and CIELO™ Life are all dedicated open-fit (or open-ear) products and should have been included in Table 2 on page 38. CENTRA Life and ACURIS Life both offer memory capability when used with the optional remote control feature. Also, Siemens Hearing Instruments’ correct Web address is www.usa.siemens.com/hearing.
Additionally, the Starkey PxP has a 675 battery case and does not support the slim tube. The Destiny BTE 13 does support the slim tube. For more information on Starkey hearing instruments, visit www.starkey.com or call 800.328.8602.
