Measuring Hearing Aid Benefit With the APHAB Is This as Good as It Gets? Face-to-Face
Face-to-Face  |   November 01, 1995
Measuring Hearing Aid Benefit With the APHAB
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Robert G. Paul
    Feature Editor, Face-to-Face, American Journal of Audiology
  • Robyn M. Cox, PhD
    School of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, The University of Memphis, 807 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, TN 38105
    Professor
Article Information
Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Face-to-Face
Face-to-Face   |   November 01, 1995
Measuring Hearing Aid Benefit With the APHAB
American Journal of Audiology, November 1995, Vol. 4, 10-13. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0403.10
History: Received July 19, 1995 , Accepted August 21, 1995
 
American Journal of Audiology, November 1995, Vol. 4, 10-13. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0403.10
History: Received July 19, 1995; Accepted August 21, 1995
Paul
Cox
Paul: The results shown by Ebinger, Holland, Holland, and Mueller (1995)  in a poster presentation at the 1995 American Academy of Audiology meeting caught my eye. They reported on the use of the APHAB as a means to assess whether there were differences in benefit between Class D and K-AMP completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids.
What interested me was that their subjects seemed to experience the same percentage of problems across the four APHAB listening situations in the aided condition as did subjects in our study (Paul, Talley, Pleasants, & Usrey, 1994) in which we used the PHAB to compare the benefit obtained with each of four different hearing aid gain and output selection approaches. As in the Ebinger et al. study, some of the aids we used were K-AMP, but most were Class D integrated receivers; however, all of our aids were ITEs.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access