Comments on: Deaf Audiologists

By: wildstarryskies

wildstarryskies — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:27:31 +0000

Yes, I can certainly understand that. It was difficult for me to adjust to an digital one, after I got an analog. I still do wish I could “turn up” the volume, but I do recognize that the quality of sound is more clear and that I can hear more at a lower volume, which I like.

By: B.C.

B.C. — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:04:13 +0000

I will never get Cochlear Implants!! If digital hearing aids are new to me and it causes my brain or my ears to react differently, suppose Cochlear Implant did that to me and how do I remove it? another surgery? no thanks! Digital, luckily I can just turn it off or put it away! No surgery required.
I think I will wait for future technology where it only requires ear drops where it helps regrow and repair the ear nerves. LOL

By: B.C.

B.C. — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:02:05 +0000

That is a scary thought, no more analog hearing aids?? if so, I guess I will have to succumb to hearing’s belief in digital hearing aids in the future when my current analog breaks and just accept that I cannot use music or go to the movie theatres anymore with it. It’s like they are winning with cochlear implants telling people it’s the new IT thing for cure for hearing loss. SURE digital hearing aids and cochlear HELPS but it is not that great - there are alot of pros and cons for both while analog, there are few cons than pros since I am a big user of analog but when I wrote down pros and cons for digital and analog…analog I had none exept for it not lasting a lifetime while digital it causes my hearing to ring and compress sounds when it’s not true to what it should be sounded! so I think Analog trumps digital. AUDIOLOGIST read those blogs huh?
It annoys me only because audiologist and corporations’ decision is what is BEST for them not for us.
I’m sure the coroporation are thinking -cheaper to make digital hearing aids and newest technology, easy to fool deaf people, they wont know the difference! If it cuases their ears to ring and lose majority of what they have left, what’s the difference? they are already deaf, who are the public going to believe us or them?! (just guessing their greedy comments if digital fails to achieve what analog does and just being sarcastic! LOL)

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:02:04 +0000

B.C., I feel that you and I could sit down over drinks and get along real well on this matter.

The audiologist who met me a couple of weeks ago alerted me to the fact that companies were ending their commitment to analog hearing aids. Her notice seemed intended to prod me to accept the inevitable about digital technology.

Gloria, could I ask you what you know about the design and improvement of digital hearing aids? As I said, they seem to be a good idea. In practice, however, their benefits can be marginal or non-existent.

I know nothing about the production side of hearing aids, and what type of user feedback goes into their development.

By: Gloria

Gloria — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 04:08:46 +0000

I understand that there are issues and questions about the space currently being allotted to the hearing and speech sciences department in the SLCC. I want to stress that people should not try to place “value” based on size of the space occupied. It really all boils down to basic logistics. Different departments have their own equipment used for evaluation, research, and so on.. It just so happens that the equipment that takes up a lot of space are from the audiology program. They include these acoustic booths, machines, as well as devices on demonstration for people to try out before deciding which fits them best before purchasing them (the availability of our demo area is advanced compared to any other university programs). The outcome is certainly a much larger occupation than a taping studio that might be used by ASL/Deaf Studies or Linguistics may need, for instance, or papers that are administered by other departments. In a way it is unfair to attempt to compare physical size between departments and imply that there is some underlying value being expressed here.
Currently the hearing and speech department is housed in one of the last academic buildings to be renovated on campus, in fact the engineers several years ago declared it essentially unsavable. Anyone who has been in the building before would agree it is really in very poor shape. Instead of three floors in Mary Thornberry Building, they will have a floor and a half in SLCC.

By: B.C.

B.C. — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:40:22 +0000

yes I agree. I get the same reaction as you recieved from audiologist because they feel we should be up to date with technology. Cochlear Implants or digital hearing aids is REQUIRED AND RECOMMENDED by hearing corporations and hearing audiologist who cannot tell the difference between analog and digital and now understanding how compressing the sounds causes my ear to ring. With analog hearing aid when things got loud and uncomfortable, I just simply turn the volume down but at the movies, I loved the loud and explosions and so on but with digital, there was no loud explosions coming thru my hearing aid!!! To find out it compressed it and caused my ear to ring for at least 1 hour. I had to turn off my hearing aid in order to stop the ringing with analog, never had to.
Yes I agree people who used digital for the first time and never had analog cannot tell the difference and the comparison, true with digital hearing aid, I could hear myself speak beautifully which helped me correct my own speech but at the same time, out in the reality, it sucked! I prefer to hear what is surrounded by me, not that being deaf is bad but i’m used to wearing hearing aids as is.
My audiologist said over 30 major companies stopped making analogs!! I was so upset cuz my favorite ananlog was made by Bosch, but no more! Now I have to settle with analogs that are made cheaply and not as good as they would make it if it was a hot market.
Audiologist and corporations have to LISTEN to what we say not what is best in technology based or cheaper to manufacture since IT IS FOR US TO USE not for them to use.

By: Shane

Shane — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:52:20 +0000

No, you didn’t say that. We’ve seen blogs that have implied that though. For example:
http://www.savegallaudet.org/?p=87

By: RLM

RLM — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:45:38 +0000

Shane,

In response to your comment #83301, I never say or call for ousting the audiology department out of Gallaudet University campus.

I did make following comments about SLCC’s questionable intentions of having the HSLS on two floors. That is all.

We could not possibly avoid the reality about audiologists as first responders to parents of deaf youngsters. Parents would find out about the hearing status of their or hir newborn infant at the hosptial.

The licensed audiologists do employ with the hosptials for newborn infant hearing screenings.

Gloria Nathanson is one of kind as a deaf audiologist on the front line against such paternalism and cultural misindentity. Her presence would be very reassuring for deaf youngsters which she is on their sides.

RLM

By: Gloria

Gloria — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:45:47 +0000

I agree with you about teaching people how to read audiograms. I have taught over 6 courses to college students (both undergraduate and graduates) and I have found very few of them actually knew how to read their own audiograms. Many of my students told me they felt empowered to finally know exactly what the document, that defined many experiences they had, really meant.
As for audistic attitudes of audiologists, I think it is really no different than any other profession that you may choose. There will be people who harbor a belief system that favors hearing above all and there are people that do not.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:36:05 +0000

It is a relief to see a story like this, because I have used an analog hearing aid for 35 years — since suffering a bout of meningitis at the age of 2. I tried the newfangled digital aid about three years ago and found it to be conceptually a good idea but unrewarding in practical terms.

My fundamental critique of the digital hearing aid is that it is probably not sophisticated and subtle enough to effectively discriminate against unwanted sounds while amplifying the good sounds. I do think that digital technology is great, but I also believe it is in its infancy and that significant improvements are possible.

When the audiologists received my feedback on the digital hearing aid, they were condescending and looked as if they didn’t have time to field my concerns. I got the sense that they were accustomed to dictating their standards to a pliable geriatric clientele who had little or no experience with hearing aids.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I met with another audiologist who again seemed impatient about my reservations with digital hearing aids.

I had previously found audiologists to be a good group of people to work with — they helped me hear better, which is a valuable service. Their uncritical faith in digital technology, however, has soured me on the audiology profession.