Talk:Hearing aid

message: Ear horn and ear trumpet lead to this page, but it contains no information about them. This page leads you to horn (acoustic), which just leads you back here again. Which means there's essentially no information on Wikipedia about ear trumpets.... Why isn't there a separate article? --Toastedcheese (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Hearing Aids

message: Does the fact that hearing aids amplify sound for a person who already has hearing loss speed up the rate at which such a person loses their hearing? I'm completely deaf in one ear and partially in the other, myself; but I've never had a hearing aid nor even had one suggested for me. Corporal 20:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be POV if it gave the name and address of the audiologist/ENT specialist or his/her practice. As it is, it is merely good advice even if a little self-evident. Dieter Simon 22:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick question

message: It should be noted that the heading "Buyer beware" has been reverted some time ago as being POV. Expect the worst. Heading changer beware. Dieter Simon 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buyer beware 

message: I have added a note to the telecoil section about hearing loops. I was surprised that there seems currently no article about these on WP but I guess it is because they remain relatively rare in the US. In the UK they are almost mandatory in many public places because of our Disability Discrimination Act 2005. For a number of years I have been on the Environmental Aids committee of Hearing Concern - see http://www.hearingconcern.org.uk/campaigns/camp_envaids.html
I shall shortly be writing a seperate article on Induction Loop systems to expand this topic.  Dsergeant 15:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hearing Loop systems

message: There are many references in this article to "recently" that I would think need "as of" beside them. I don't know if the recent advancements mentioned are from now (2007) or from the day wikipedia was started. Just giving "as of" would be enough, because the word "recently" can only apply for a while, and can mean anything (World War I was a recent war compared to the crusades, but WWI isn't recent at all compared to Desert Storm). Just give the date whatever was introduced, or if you only know that its recent, at least say "recent as of" so that the article can stand up to time even if it isn't continually edited. I'd like to think the guidelines would want articles in a state that if archived now would still provide a lot of accurate information in a thousand years. If I'm wrong about this set me straight. I'm not a contributor to this article and may never read it again who knows, but I thought those that were may be able to provide more accurate dates, or as I said at least mention when it was written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hastor (talk • contribs) 06:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent advancements etc. 

message: These sections don't belong in a global article, besides they lack referances therefore I hearby challange them!
DCwom 12:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to remove sections about In USA, and out of USA 

message: This article contains both technical and medical related information, and therefore needs many more references. Currently the article is somewhere between a tutorial and a sales brochure. The article is also too long for an encyclopedia, there is too much detail about the particilars of each instrument type.
DCwom 13:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Many More Refs 

message: According to the introduction hearing aids are used to "amplify and modulate"
sounds. My understanding is that they selectively amplify (and perhaps attenuate) different frequencies to different degrees in much the same way as a recording sound engineer or an electric guitar player does with an equaliser. It is misleading to use the word 'modulate'. In engineering modulation refers to modifying a carrier wave in some way to carry information.  77.97.161.230 (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modulate

message: In the ITE section it states that "These devices fit in the outer ear bowl (called the concha or pinna)". Is it too pedantic to say that "concha" is the name of the outer ear bowl, whereas "pinna" refers to the whole of the ear outside the skull, and should this be amended? --81.159.138.215 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important to be both accurate and accessible. Sometimes, that is challenging. Why don't you give it a go? Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concha/pinna 

message: The new section on US regulations seems overly detailed with its many complex citations of legal cases and specific state and federal regulations.  It seems likely to over-complicate a reader's decision to purchase a hearing aid, especially by mail; and also likely to make him uneasy about making such a decision.  The repetition of the vaguely threatening phrase "restricted devices" makes hearing aids sound rather dangerous - in one place, the writer calls them Class I "restricted devices", but in fact the FDA defines Class I devices as "those presenting the least risk".  Per the FDA, "Restricted devices are the subset of FDA-regulated devices over which FDA has advertising jurisdiction.  They include, for example, hearing aids, certain types of contact lenses and diagnostic tests, and many types of high-risk devices."  Not so scary now, eh?
The section seems out of balance with the rest of the article.
I recommend that it be removed entirely, or stripped down to a few basic facts, such as that the FDA controls the advertising and sale of hearing aids, that state regulations may vary (without citing the most onerous), and a simple NPOV summary of the FDA rules on buying a hearing aid, no more and no less.  --CliffC (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag on new section dealing with US regulation of hearing aids 

message: Regarding on "What to link"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL
The site Healthy Hearing has an in depth collection of articles, common questions, and user guides that cover in depth not only aspects of hearing aids, but hearing loss in general. Additionally, a comprehensive funding guide is available free of charge to help persons who have hearing loss and need hearing aids.    The site is staffed by audiologists and professional writers who have expertise in teaching and writing about hearing loss and hearing aids http://www.healthyhearing.com/about  - The site is also the only official site selected by Google News to cover the topic of hearing loss and hearing aids.  Therefore, the ongoing news and articles (example)  http://www.healthyhearing.com/articles/42690-care-for-hearing-aids  that are beyond the scope of what a Wikipedia article would typically cover.  This is in connection with "Such links could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."
The site does contain advertising, but this is no different than your local newspaper website.  It has independent news and information about a topic, but it has to generate ad revenue.  Healthy Hearing is really like the national USA Today for hearing loss and hearing aids.  I am assuming that this is why the link is in question - but it would mean that on a Wikipedia article on Newspapers that you could not create wiki pages on those newspapers nor could you link to those newspaper websites as examples.  
If you take the time to read through the articles, news releases, the consumer guides and the common questions, you will see what I am talking about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.216.178 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I regularly trim external links from articles that appear to have an excess. Too many links make it difficult for the reader to find the ones that are the most helpful. Commercial articles are often suspect because some companies see Wikipedia as a way to advertise their products. May I ask if you have a connection to http://www.healthyhearing.com/ or a financial interest in the products advertised there? I need to ask because of WP:COI and I think it best to be direct about such matters. I note that American Hearing Research Foundation covers related news, but I agree that Healthy Hearing is more thorough.. The advertising on the Healthy Hearing site does not prevent it from being linked, but it is a concern and should be discussed. Are you the anonymous editor that edit warred on October 7 to restore the link? Edit warring should be avoided. It is better to bring disputes to the talk page so that it can be discussed and resolved. If it is decided to keep the link, then you can cite the discussion in your edit summary when you restore it. Thank you for pointing out the qualifications of the editorial team of the site. That is a point in its favor. Regarding "Take Care of Your Hearing Aids", please consider adding content based on that source to  the article with an appropriate footnote. That will make it easy for the reader to find the source article and learn more. Inline links to footnotes are encouraged and rarely removed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the link on the Hearing Aids page to Healthy Hearing 

message: I get the impression that "in the ear" hearing aids are essentially restricted to hearing losses of "up to" -35 db, because of battery size. But would need a good reference.
Also shells stink for listening in front of a person. There are good reasons to use in the ear, besides vanity. They use your ear as a collector and a person can hear better than someone with a shell. If this isn't here, it should be IMO. Student7 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: In the ear hearing aids

message: I can't see anything in the article to set it in a historical context; it's all "older", "earliest", "recent" and "today"- terms which are essentially meaningless. When was the first hearing aid developed? When did the behind the ear ones get invented? There's no timeline at all, no sense of how one thing developed into the next over a period of years. For all I know, they could all have been developed at the same time. There's a line about "the late 1950s through 1970s, before in-the-ear aids became common" and that's the only place I can see anything like a date. (I know nothing about hearing aids, and I wandered over here looking for when they were first developed.) MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a big-picture timeline here, starting with the ear trumpet in the early 1700s.  Similar page here.  For anyone with time to expand the article, or just the curious, see Deafness in Disguise: Concealed Hearing Devices of the 19th and 20th Centuries (NSFW, includes scantily-clad 1940s ladies with aids strapped to their legs).  --CliffC (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical context? 

message: I contacted the Songbird Hearing people, who turn out to be an ordering service with little or no knowledge of audiology or hearing aid technology. This product is not a true hearing aid, but an across-the board amplifier at all frequencies (and not a very flat response. either, according to their PDF chart). Furthermore, it is not a disposable unit as claimed in the article, but uses batteries like other consumer devices. The current price is $495 per ear, which is high for this very basic functionality as compared with similar advertised devices. For all these reasons, the device should not be mentioned in Wikipedia in contexts in which it does not belong. David Spector (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songbird Hearing 

message: This article could use a good History section. Misty MH (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a history section using the lead from History of hearing aids.  Feel free to improve it. pgr94 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section? 

message: Several acronyms are used in this article but are undefined. A few examples are: CIC, ITC, and MIC. It looks like they were once defined but the article has been trimmed too much and now that information is missing. Could someone please replace the missing information and make sure that all acronyms are defined at least once? Thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined acronyms 

message: The articles states that interference is rare for hearing loop systems, but gives no source for that claim. I feel this is quite misleading. Interference is in fact a big problem. See for example http://www.emaa.com.au/documents/accessdocs/AFILS_Info_Sheet.pdf which states "If there are other loop systems close by, the problem of overlap of sound must be addressed. This is a serious problem if the auditoria are next to or above one another. There are various ways to resolve this overlap but consult the experts while the design is still in its early stage.
There are many unsatisfactory audio-magnetic loop installations. It is an area for the specialist, rather than the average electrical consultant or contractor. Consultation may be necessary at the early design stage as well as when the building is under construction." Unfortunately, much of the information publicly available about loop systems is put out by people who have a financial incentive to promote the use of such systems, even when cheaper alternatives would be better for people whose hearing is impaired. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed! 

message: There is a great deal of overlap between Digital Hearing Aid and this article; much of what isn't covered here in that new article is WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, often referenced by product pages. I propose that we merge it here. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: merge no reason for separate articles. Deunanknute (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Hearing Aid 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hearing aid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080222003941/http://varibel.nl:80/site/home/default.asp to http://varibel.nl/site/home/default.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080216165527/http://www.tr.is:80/english to http://www.tr.is/english
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101002061033/http://www.rnid.org.uk:80/VirtualContent/101701/NHS_hearing_aid_service_September_2009.pdf to http://www.rnid.org.uk/VirtualContent/101701/NHS_hearing_aid_service_September_2009.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hearing aid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101206172236/http://www.tiaonline.org/news_events/press_room/press_releases/2007/press-1175779463784.cfm to http://www.tiaonline.org/news_events/press_room/press_releases/2007/press-1175779463784.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 17:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: In section seven of the Hearing aid page, the information about rechargeable batteries does not reflect the advancements over the past few years in rechargeable hearing aid battery technology. Here is the information in question: 
"While there are some rare instances that a hearing aid uses a rechargeable battery or a long-life disposable battery, the majority of modern hearing aids use one of five standard button cell zinc–air batteries."
Suggested copy changes:
"Within the past several years, major advancements in rechargeable hearing aid battery technology have resulted in nearly every major hearing aid manufacturer now offering a rechargeable battery option using either silver zinc chemistry or lithium ion chemistry. These batteries are powerful enough to support the wireless streaming capabilities of modern hearing aids while also providing an all-day charge."
Here are links to the various rechargeable hearing aids currently on the market:
Silver Zinc:
http://www.starkey.com/hearing-aids/rechargeable-hearing-aids
http://unitron.com/content/unitron/global/en/professional/hearing-solutions/tempus.html#FitR-2
https://www.beltonene.com/zpower_rechargeable_hearing_aids.html
https://www.oticon.com/inside-oticon/news/news/2017/april-4-2017---opn-rechargeable
http://www.nuear.com/hearing-aids/technologies/now-wireless-hearing-aids
Lithium Ion:
https://www.phonak.com/us/en/about-us/rechargeable-os-technology.html
https://www.sivantos.com/en/press/2016/07/05/sivantos-unveils-the-worlds-most-advanced-lithium-ion-inductive-rechargeable-hearing-aid/
If these citations are too commercial, here is the link to an article in a trade publication about rechargeable hearing aid options: 
https://www.hearingtracker.com/blog/rechargeable-hearing-aids-a-look-at-the-options-for-2017/
MPierson (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the refs are really suitable. This book comments how uncommon recharagle batteries are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marking as declined for needing better sources. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hearing aid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222003941/http://varibel.nl/site/home/default.asp to http://varibel.nl/site/home/default.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www6.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-hear-understanding
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hearing aid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160509173040/https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/hearingaid.asp to http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/hearingaid.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hearing aid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141225213446/http://www.radugazvukov.ru/information/articles/detail.php?article=3371 to http://www.radugazvukov.ru/information/articles/detail.php?article=3371
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Analogue hearing aids amplify (makes louder) all the sounds picked up by the microphone" - not true, I am sure many analogue devices had something like an an Equalization (audio) and/or Equalization (communications) as well as some more filters. Similarly "This allows amplifying the sounds of certain frequency" is not something that analogue devices were incapable of doing. Neither is frequency range compression a groundbreaking technology that would be in any way difficult to do with an analogue device. Feedback reduction? The same.. and so on. 2.247.252.86 (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences digital/analogue 

message: Hey folks,
I'm trying to improve this page - there is a ton of outdated, flat out incorrect information, and badly sourced information. 
Jytdog is removing my edits but has left up most of the article that is poorly sourced or incorrect. I am happy to provide more sources, but if edits are going to be removed for source issues, please delete all information on the page that is not sourced or poorly sourced.
Thank you,
Sigsaly (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of what you did was great.  Thanks for that!  I removed edits that were unsourced or badly sourced.  I left the rest. Please use WP:MEDRS sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is a mess. 

message: Hello
There is a minor error in the "Block diagram of digital hearing aid" signal flow diagram. I'm rather new to wikipedia and have no idea how to help fix an image of a diagram. The error is the process block labelled "Flattering Filter" - it should be "Flattening Filter" or even better "Gain Flattening Filter" https://www.iridian.ca/technical-resources/optical-filter-tutorials/gain-flattening-filter-gff-tutorial/ 
I'm a retired engineer and have knowledge of signal processing, so I feel qualified to point out this error.
Thank you
SmokeyVW (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the digital signal flow diagram 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Noting that a JAMA article was published recently related to this topic: see https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2799343 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-the-counter hearing aids, United States 

message: Hearing device redirects here, but I think this is not quite correct. Hearing assist devices were also inside the early telephones and are not discussed here. Wuerzele (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hearing device