Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
North Carolina Medical Journal
  • Other Publications
    • North Carolina Medical Journal
  • My alerts
  • Log in
North Carolina Medical Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
    • Upcoming Scientific Articles
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Subscribers
  • About Us
    • About the North Carolina Medical Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • RSS
  • Follow ncmj on Twitter
  • Visit ncmj on Facebook
Research ArticlePolicy Forum

Updates in Hearing Technology

Patricia Johnson
North Carolina Medical Journal March 2017, 78 (2) 104-106; DOI: https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.78.2.104
Patricia Johnson
assistant clinical professor, Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Allied Health Sciences, UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: patricia_johnson@med.unc.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Advances in hearing technology offer patients with hearing loss even better ways to improve communication and quality of life. Hearing devices are more convenient and compatible than ever, with wireless connectivity to smartphones and lithium-ion rechargeable batteries, while improved surgical techniques widen the candidacy for cochlear implants to those with more residual hearing.

When it comes to hearing technology, we have come a long way from the beige banana-like hearing aids of our grandparents' generation. As all consumer and medical technology has gotten smaller, faster, and smarter, so too have the on-ear computers worn by millions of Americans with hearing loss. Hearing aids and cochlear implants are digital, more discrete, and offer patients even more ways to improve communication and interact with the world around them.

Not Your Grandparent's Hearing Aid

A hearing aid is essentially an amplifying device designed to compensate for a listener's loss of hearing acuity. Using computer software, a Doctor of Audiology (a health care professional who specializes in hearing and balance) programs the hearing aid to apply appropriate amounts of amplification at specific pitches. Best practice dictates that a small probe microphone be placed into the patient's ear canal during programming. The resulting measurement, called Real-Ear Verification or Speech Mapping, allows the Audiologist to “see” how the hearing aid is amplifying sound in real time, from within the ear itself. Whether the patient is a 6-month-old infant or a 103-year-old veteran, Real-Ear Verification leads to objective, accurate, and safe hearing aid programming.

Achieving audibility, however, is only the beginning. Hearing aids today analyze the surrounding environment and make advanced signal processing decisions in milliseconds. With binaural (ear-to-ear) communication between devices, hearing aids can even scan 360° around the patient's head to identify dominant speech patterns and reduce the effects of background noise. Higher levels of hearing aid technology can even recognize the presence of music, whether the listener is in a large reverberant space, or whether the listener is riding in the car—all based on the characteristic noise and spectral patterns of the acoustic environment.

Bluetooth/2.4 GHz Streaming

A technology that has received a great deal of attention in recent years is the ability to wirelessly stream audio signals from one device to another using Bluetooth. Initially used for hands-free mobile phone communication, Bluetooth streaming technology is now used to send audio signals (eg, from phones, MP3 players, television) into the patient's ears. The hearing aids, in essence, become personal headphones. Some hearing aid manufacturers utilize an intermediate device called a streamer that must be worn around the patient's neck. The streamer receives the Bluetooth signal, and, using a neckloop antenna, sends the signal via near-field magnetic induction (NFMI) to the hearing aids [1]. By streaming audio directly into the hearing devices, the streamer produces sound quality that does not suffer the effects of reverberation and distance. Often, these streamers double as remote controls, allowing the patient to adjust hearing aid volume and change listening programs. Unfortunately, the size and visibility of the streamer device deters some consumers.

Other hearing aid manufacturers do not require the intermediary streamer, but can send audio signals directly to the hearing aids from another device using a 2.4 GHz license-free Industry Science Medical (ISM) platform [1]. Sound sources may include manufacturer-specific remote microphones, TV transmitters, and, most popular of all, iPhones, iPads or other Apple devices. While very similar to Bluetooth, the 2.4 GHz protocol uses proprietary bandwidths for the communication of a designated set of devices. After downloading an application (app), patients can utilize their smart phones as a remote control in a fashion similar to the streamer. As many of us are rarely without our smart phones, 2.4 GHz streaming offers hearing aid users convenient and discrete control over their devices.

Lithium Ion Batteries

The vast majority of hearing aids run on small disposable zinc-air batteries. Depending on the size of the battery, it typically lasts 6 to 10 days and then is replaced. Some zinc-air batteries, used in the tiniest of hearing aids, last only 3-4 days. Unfortunately, disposable batteries are rarely recycled properly, a concern given that most zinc-air batteries contain mercury. A welcome alternative for many patients is rechargeable batteries. Offered by only a few hearing aid manufacturers, traditional rechargeable batteries utilize nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH) technology. Each night, the patient places the hearing aids in a charging unit that recharges them for use in the morning. For patients with dexterity or vision challenges, the convenience and ease of rechargeability go a long way toward independent maintenance of their aids. Drawbacks of NiMH batteries are their limited daily life span (12-16 hours) on a single charge and the need to still replace them once a year.

In the last year, a superior energy development was achieved using lithium-ion batteries. While perhaps best known for their challenges (exploding smart phones!), when managed for overheating, lithium-ion (Li-Ion) batteries offer many advantages to traditional disposable and previous generations of rechargeable hearing aid batteries. The patient using Li-Ion batteries avoids weekly battery changes and only needs to replace the battery every 3-4 years (see Figure 1). With an estimated 1.5 billion disposable hearing aid batteries entering landfills annually, Li-Ion boasts a greener solution [2]. Another great advantage is the length of Li-Ion battery life on a single charge—up to 24 hours. With hearing aid signal processing becoming more advanced, power consumption has also increased. Binaural communication between devices, as well as wireless audio streaming, places greater demands on battery consumption, so a quick charging Li-Ion battery with extended battery life is a real plus for patients connected to modern technology [3].

FIGURE 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.

Lithium Ion Rechargeable Hearing Aids

Hybrid Devices: Half Cochlear Implant-Half Hearing Aid

For patients with severe cochlear damage and very poor speech understanding, even the most advanced hearing aid technology may not be able to overcome the degradation of neural structures in the ear. Instead, a cochlear implant may be the best treatment. A traditional cochlear implant uses electrical impulses to stimulate the auditory nerve through the cochlea, imitating the fine-tuned response of the cochlea's small hair cells. A cochlear implant has two main components: an external speech processor and an internal electrode array. The patient wears the external speech processor over the ear, which uses small microphones to pick up sound in the environment. The sound is then turned into an electronic signal that communicates via a magnetic coil to the internal electrode array, which is implanted directly into the cochlea. Following the tonotopic (pitch specific) layout of the cochlea, the electrode array can stimulate different regions at different rates, all of which is perceived by the patient as varying pitch and loudness.

Prior Food and Drug Administration regulation has limited cochlear implant candidacy to those with moderate to profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (what some describe as deafness). This meant that some patients found themselves in a hearing purgatory: having hearing too poor to be sufficiently helped by a hearing aid, but not yet poor enough to qualify for a cochlear implant. Additionally, cochlear implant surgery typically resulted in a loss of residual hearing due to cochlear trauma. With newer, improved surgical techniques and in some cases a shortened internal electrode array, both the candidacy and the methods of cochlear implantation have changed [4]. Surgeons are now able to preserve low frequency hearing, leaving the patient with the opportunity to integrate both acoustic and electrical hearing. Thus enters the hybrid cochlear implant, which utilizes a cochlear implant for the patient's damaged mid and high frequency hearing and a hearing aid for the preserved low frequency hearing.

Candidates for hybrid cochlear implants must be adults over 18 years old with “ski-slope” shaped audiograms, where hearing is normal to moderate in the low pitches but then steeply declines to a severe to profound hearing loss in the high pitches (see Figure 2). Candidates must also demonstrate poor speech understanding even in their best aided condition. Research shows that speech understanding outcomes are better for those with electro-acoustic hearing than those with a traditional cochlear implant or hearing aid alone [5]. Evidence also shows improved ability to hear in noise with a hybrid device compared to a traditional cochlear implant, largely due to the added sound cues found only in acoustic hearing [6]. With a hybrid cochlear implant, patients no longer have to wait for their hearing to worsen before accessing the significant benefits of a cochlear implant, while further improving their hearing with the combined power of a hearing aid.

FIGURE 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.

Audiogram Candidacy for Hybrid Cochlear Implants

Conclusion

Under the care of an audiologist, a patient with any severity of hearing loss can find hearing technology to best meet his or her communication and lifestyle needs. As technology continues to advance, hearing technology will continue to find new ways to connect patients to their loved ones and the auditory world around them.

Acknowledgments

Potential conflicts of interest. P.J. has no relevant conflicts of interest.

  • ©2017 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Jespersen C
    A review of wireless hearing aid advantages. Hearing Review. 2012;19(2): 48-55.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Dueuber R
    What are the Benefits of Rechargeable Batteries for Rechargeable Hearing Aid Solutions? Audiology Online website. http://www.audiologyonline.com/ask-the-experts/what-benefits-rechargeable-batteries-or-12966. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  3. ↵
    1. Heuermann H,
    2. Herbig R
    Hearing Aid Batteries: the Past, Present and Future. Audiology Online website. http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/hearing-aid-batteries-past-present-18305. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  4. ↵
    1. von Ilberg CA,
    2. Baumann U,
    3. Kiefer J,
    4. Tillein J,
    5. Adunka OF
    Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: a review of the first decade. Audiol Neurootol. 2011;16(Suppl 2):1-30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Usami S,
    2. Moteki H,
    3. Tsukada K, et al.
    Hearing preservation and clinical outcome of 32 consecutive electric acoustic stimulation (EAS) surgeries. Acta Otolaryngol. 2014;134(7):717–727.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Dillon MT,
    2. Buss E,
    3. Adunka OF,
    4. Buchman CA,
    5. Pillsbury HC
    Influence of test condition on speech perception with electric-acoustic stimulation. Am J Audiol. 2015;24(4):520-528.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

North Carolina Medical Journal: 78 (2)
North Carolina Medical Journal
Vol. 78, Issue 2
March-April 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on North Carolina Medical Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Updates in Hearing Technology
(Your Name) has sent you a message from North Carolina Medical Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the North Carolina Medical Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Updates in Hearing Technology
Patricia Johnson
North Carolina Medical Journal Mar 2017, 78 (2) 104-106; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.78.2.104

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Updates in Hearing Technology
Patricia Johnson
North Carolina Medical Journal Mar 2017, 78 (2) 104-106; DOI: 10.18043/ncm.78.2.104
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Not Your Grandparent's Hearing Aid
    • Bluetooth/2.4 GHz Streaming
    • Lithium Ion Batteries
    • Hybrid Devices: Half Cochlear Implant-Half Hearing Aid
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Introduction to The NCMJ's Special Issue on Vision and Hearing Loss
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Policy Forum

  • To Inspire Vaccination, Inspire Hope
  • A Vaccine for Society
  • The Affordable Care Act in North Carolina : A Look Back and Review of Coverage Changes
Show more Policy Forum

INVITED COMMENTARIES AND SIDEBARS

  • Sidebar: Raising the Voice of Vaccines: A Community Approach in Western North Carolina
  • Sidebar: North Carolina’s Process for Developing Our COVID-19 Vaccine Plan
  • Vaccine Hesitancy in North Carolina: The Elephant in the Room?
Show more INVITED COMMENTARIES AND SIDEBARS

Similar Articles

About & Contact

  • About the NCMJ
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback

Info for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers

Articles & Alerts

  • Archive
  • Current Issue
  • Get Alerts
  • Upcoming Articles

Additional Content

  • Current NCIOM Task Forces
  • NC Health Data & Resources
  • NCIOM Blog
North Carolina Medical Journal

ISSN: 0029-2559

© 2021 North Carolina Medical Journal

Powered by HighWire