Talk:Hearing aid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deafness and Deaf culture.

For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Quick question

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)

Visiting an audiologist or an Ear-Nose-Throat physician (outside of the US, Canada and the UK) is always your best bet. To me this sounds like an ad, not NPOV. --Etxrge 06:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Advice duly accepted. As I was the one who put up the original statement, I have edited it a little for clarity.--Coryp 20:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an audiologist in the UK for the last 18 years, I've yet to see any evidence that hearing aid use speeds up the rate of hearing loss. If you have it, I would be very keen to see it.--86.148.60.22 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:violation of NPOV

Quote: "This chapter is biased determinative opinion which is in violation of NPOV.In the similar way ststement "audiologists are often provides substandard services" would be equallyt unacceptable." What exactly does all this mean?

Have you ever bought a digital hearing aid? One that hasn't been thoroughly adjusted to your individual needs, measured and electonically/digitally tested? Only a qualified audiometrist (or its equivalent titles and accompanying qualifications) can do that. You may want to throw £200 away but I would rather spend £800 on professional services which can guarantee (or as near as dammit) me an aid that works for me. This has absolutely nothing to do with POV, this is helpful reminder of what may happen if you don't care. Have reversed the para in the article. Dieter Simon 00:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To: Dieter Simon. You can't simply give advises based on your personal experience. If you want give information about alternative way of getting HA , such as online its fine, but you can't say "this is better than that, so don't do that'. "BEWARE"(???). You put warning inside the information article.(???) Who are you kidding. You want to state "There is A and there is B". Fine. You want to say "A is the first letter and B is second". Fine. But you can't simply state "I like B. It's better sound. It's better than A". Why do I even have to explain this basic things about neutrality to a grown person, unless he has a personal agenda. BTW I clearly explained reason for my edit. Go ahead refresh your info about rules of NPOV. That what you should've done before reediting me. Do the right thing and undo your edit. P.S. BTW Been there, done it. Both way. Our personal experiences has nothing to do with neutral and unbiased info. Even if they 100% true. There is numerous discussion boards, forums to vent your anger, to express your personal opinion or to give advice. One of it,which I put link to could've been just the right place for you. And why did you remove link to it? What's resonable unbiased explanation you can give me about it? Mind boggling...216.233.120.165

Hi 216.233.120.165, the para on buying hearing aids will be changed, it wasn't created by myself in first place. However, may main contention is that rather than removing it as you did, you should have improved on it by describing the factual/actual process of buying a hearing aid and yes, the pitfalls that may attend the purchase. I agree, a bald warning may not be appropriate, but there are ways and means of editing this, not just removing it.
It is no good you saying there is no particular way, or even that there are many different ways, of purchasing a hearing aid, especially a digital one, that just won't do. You cannot just walk into a shop, put your money down and walk away with a hearing aid. As I said, digital hearing aids need to be bought under professional guidance whether you like or not, and that is not a personal view, but a fact. Since you pride yourself in being an exponent on NPOV, that of all things should have guided you. This is not an advert for the professional services of audiometrists/audiologists, after all no names have been published, but a statement of fact that this type of help is needed. So, I invite you to have a go like all good Wikipedians and edit this because it needs doing and stating. Dieter Simon 01:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

To: Dieter Simon.If you would've been asked to create a manual for TV set, people would've know exactly which program is best for them, but have no idea how to switch channels. Give them info of how to use it and let them make their own mind what to watch. You replace one mess with another. Same judgmental opinion, only now compounded into semantic."Need, should, have to, must be, more important"... A lot of recommendations, very little info. May be I am not fair to your efforts. Criticizing you all the time and you are the one who's trying... But I have to. You have such a record contributing to Wiki, you should know better what favoritism means. I might take up on your advise and contribute to this issue in a little while. Meanwhile, I see that you are making attempts, but perhaps something personal, biased holding you back. You asked me a few questions before. I answered them. Now its my turn. Are you an audi? Do you have any personal relation to that field? Regards.216.233.120.165

Then alter it to what you think it should read, don't just "might" take up on my advice, "do" take up on my advice and edit it. I really have no axe to grind in this, but people who are in need of a hearing aid need also expert advice, that is not from me but from the experts. If you think differently please enlighten us. I am not making any attempts at anything, as I said I came in on this at a late stage, it was not my original paragraph, and I am quite disinterested. I am yet to see what your anti-bias consists of. You keep on about it but don't show us what form this takes. I am agog to find out. However, please don't just remove the paragraph. Dieter Simon 23:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buyer beware

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)

[edit] Hearing Aid Sale

It was not an experiment. I've contributed to this article before. If you have bias or no info regarding the article paragraph please restrain yourself of further editing. The latest edit provided very little or hardly any related info regarding paragraph title. If the potential editor willing to make informative contribution I'll be gladly provide some points to cover for the paragraph title purpose. I'm reverting it back to previous version by SM. Please discus it before you attempt to make any changes. 216.233.121.2 6:42PM MAY9 2006

I have not reverted the previous version because of vandalism but because the present version is so much better. It may be USA-centred but that should not be a reason for preventing the American side from being heard. It is up to us Non-American Wikipedians to show how sales and after-sales are affected in other countries. So, please concentrate on that rather than conduct an argument for no reason than that the previous version was there before.
Sorry, this was me, forgot to sign off. Dieter Simon 23:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

and, still, i would like to hear of personal experience regarding types and makes of HA. I need this for my old mother (88) who is a misician , loosing her hearing. thanks ashrab

Hi Ashrab, I am afraid your mother (with your help) will have ot seek professional advice on this. If you look at the article and then the "Processing" section, that will give you some idea of what it entails. I am sorry but no outsider can give you advice off hand as your mother's hearing will
have to be tested by professionals and on the strength of the test results best advice can be given. Dieter Simon 22:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A reminder to please keep opinions out of the article itself, especially in the "hearing aid sales" section. (I've made some small edits to bring this back in line with WP policy.) Government standards for consumer practices are things we can cite and leave verifiable for readers. No matter how good or helpful you think advice is, advice and opinions that are not previously published and cited from a reliable source cannot be verified and, thus, do not belong in the article. --Ds13 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying about "keeping opinions out of the article...", Ds13. Yes, private opinions should never be part of an article unless their are being cited as either being pro or con the main theme of an article and then being dealt with in the light of general tenor of that theme. I trust you weren't referring to my recommendation to Ashrab that he should ask his mother to seek professional advice. If you are talking about another section or instance, perhaps it should be under that section and not under "Hearing aid sales"? or perhaps address the User concerned whose points you are trying refute?. Dieter Simon 23:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I wasn't necessarily referring to you. (I put this as a top-level post.) Over the past few months, there have been many poor choices of wording in the article such as what someone "should" do or what the "best" advice is. I've reverted these in the past and left comments in the edit history. Some of these edits came back and these are the opinions I'm objecting to. And I agree; we shouldn't have to remind people that opinions and uncited advice don't belong here, but for some reason this article is attracting such contributions. Well-intentioned, I'm sure, but inappropriate. --Ds13 00:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Buying a Hearing Aid The article should make it clear that outside the United States many advanced countries have health services which supply free or cheap hearing aids. Such a service has no built-in money making bias so the advice given is probably more trustworthy. 82.47.176.254 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)mikeL

[edit] Hearing Loop systems

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)

[edit] Hard of Hearing Advocacy link

The link I tried to add was removed because it was was considered spam. If you go to the "US and News and World Report" site and do a search on hearing aids, you will find a comprehensive article regarding hearing aids, "Good Vibrations: They're still hearing aids. But they're better--and smaller". In this article the site I tried to add is referenced along with all the other sites that are already in the external link to this article. The following is a quote from the article:

"If Ralph Nader had run a website in the '60s for people with hearing problems, it might have been like Hard of Hearing Advocates. Nothing and no one are beyond criticism on this volunteer-run site. The message board is especially feisty."

I am confused as to how this was perceived as spam as this site does not sell anything and I don't believe there are any advertisements on it either. This is the premier hard of hearing online forum. hoha2 00:18 AM, April 20 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me it would be more helpful to simply link to the US News and World Report article itself. --CliffC 05:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"Home of the most active..." sounds quite spammy. Advocates sounds spammmy (just as mortgage). Adding 2 links to the same site also look s quite spammy. In other words: try to be more factual and try to sound less advertising. Further CliffC's response also hints that Wiki is not a mere link-page. Good luck! Didgeweb 11:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Natalie, an administrator, gave me her blessing for including the link after removing it the other day. Please look at the site and tell me what makes it spam now, Dieter Simon? hoha2 19:36 AM, April 23 2007 (UTC)
The following was copied from the Hearing Loss article
"Hoha2, nevertheless, you are advertising for your own company, aren't you? Even if you are giving a service, it is still advertising for your own firm. I am sorry that is very much spam, from where I am sitting.
Pasted from my own user talk page. Dieter Simon 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)"
Dieter, I am not sure what you are talking about. By you argument every external link is a advertisement. Please explain why the other links are not advertisements and this is. I am a hard of hearing member of the forum for the site and have no other affiliation to the site. Where on the site do you see any profiteering occurring? It is an advocacy group for the hard of hearing. "Us News and World Report" acknowledges it's relevancy to the hard of hearing. Please go to the forum and look at its content. It is purely material that all hard of hearing people should read. It has the answers to every question that has ever been asked about hearing problems and how it effects my life and every other hard of hearing person's life. It is run by the hard of hearing for the hard of hearing. It's a world reknown site. Please state what part of the site indicates that it is a "company" or a "firm". I am not hyping anything. I am a hard of hearing person who spent decades looking for a resource like this. And that is why I want to put the link up. For myself and for others who are hard of hearing or are geniunely concerned about the cause for the hard of hearing. Next time you respond please provide references to substantiate your argument. hoha2 22:36 , April 23 2007 (UTC)

Pasting the following from elsewhere in reply to hoha2's comments:

The first thing I should say in reply to your message is, that you have indeed chosen a rather unfortunate nick in signing off as "hoha2" which obviously refers to the name of the website you are "advocating" ("Hard of Hearing Advocates"). Other editors will connect this with some personal interest. I don't know what your personal involvement in the forum is, you are seemingly more than a mere member of a forum, as you are signing off in this way.
You are also not registered as a "user", you are not a Wikipedia editor as such (hence the red link and on clicking on the user link produces a blank field), but are an editor using Wikipedia for your own purpose (how ever noble). At this stage I should refer you to the guide-lines for WP-users as regards to spam: Wikipedia:Spam, and see "External link spamming" where the first para reads as follows:

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.

The problem is that it is not at all obvious what the website represents, a forum yes, but what else? Is there a hidden meaning? Editors will not get involved in the website if it looks anything like advocating a "cause". So every time you add your external link, it may stay for a while only to be "reverted" at the next opportunity when other editors come across it.
Even if there is no commercial interest involved, it is still promoting a website (and a cause). Perhaps registering as a WP user, and then writing a little para referring to forums which can help those who have hearing difficulties, might alter the perception of what you are trying to do, but don't hold your breath. It will be pounced on for the above reasons, depending on the perception of the editor at the time. There can be no certainty that an external link (or any other content, for that matter) will remain if there is the slightest doubt of "spam", I am sorry, we are an encyclopaedia and not there to promote "causes". However, I wish you luck in your endeavours. Dieter Simon 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dieter Simon 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again Dieter your argument is null and void. There is already an advocacy link in the external link for shhh. All the links are either run directly or indirectly by audiologists who obviously make money off the hard of hearing. Are you perhaps associated with the field of audiology? I will add the hoha link. If you or anybody else deletes the link, I will delete every other link. Since aferall no external link meets any of your criteria. Of course I will reference you as the source for the reason why the links were be deleted. hoha2 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not arguing, hoha, I am just advising you what happens in Wikipedia, nor am I involved to any great extent. You were wondering why and I gave the reason that in Wikipedia anyone can edit an article according to the guidelines. I gave you good advice to register and be an editor on the article and explain what the forums do, rather than just enter an external link which almost certainly would be rmoved. That's all I can do for you. I shall paste this in the two hearing-related articles. Dieter Simon 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Dieter Simon 00:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent advancements etc.

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)

[edit] Propose to remove sections about In USA, and out of USA

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)

The whole article seems to me to be written from a United States point of view and to be based on assumptions that US practices of supply, provision and prices are universal. They are not universal. That is why I added the two lines that you don't like.

(The other name 'Deaf Aid' is quite acceptable. WP needs it listing with a re-direction)

(heres a reference http://www.rnid.org.uk/information_resources/hearing_aids/ I can't give you references in french, german, spanish etc. because I am not fluent enough to find them and I might send you somewhere inappropriate ) 77.97.161.230 09:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)mikeL

MikeL, I think you misunderstand me, I agree with you that the article is US centric. These two sections, in and out of USA are both unreferenced anyway, and should be removed if no one supplies referances soon. DCwom 12:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • In a small attempt to compensate for the US bias, I added a (referenced!) note about the situation in the UK. That now sits uncomfortably in the section about US practice so I'll move it now. Whilst I agree that the current version is unbalanced, I do think that information about different arrangements for supplying hearing aids across the globe is relevant and should be retained. What's needed is a thorough edit of these two sections, not just a simple deletion. Kahuzi 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed unrefered section on sales. DCwom 19:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs Many More Refs

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)

[edit] Modulate

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)mikeL

[edit] Concha/pinna

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)

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)

[edit] anyone know any companies?

anyone know any companies?if so send names to my talk page. i'll be watching.jack (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)