Subject: Re: Affordable hearing aids extant? From: Ben Hornsby <ben.hornsby(at)VANDERBILT.EDU> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:33:23 -0600I may be a bit out of the loop. I'm not clear on what data suggest that untreated mild to moderate hearing loss (not severe to profound) leads to the decline in cognitive function or irreversible neurophysiologic damage suggested by Magilen. My understanding was that deficits due to auditory deprivation could be overcome to a large degree if amplification was initiated (hence not irreversible). Regardless, if the losses we are talking about are mild to moderate these individuals are receiving auditory stimulation (although not all of speech is audible) during conversational speech, particularly in quiet. Ben -----Original Message----- From: AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA] On Behalf Of Ward R. Drennan Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:20 AM To: AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA Subject: Re: Affordable hearing aids extant? I picked up from Magilen's argument that the use of poorly fit, one- size-fits-all approach would likely lead to frustration, dissatisfaction and increased hearing aids in the drawer. It could be off-putting leading many to believe that devices are useless. Not to mention irreversible neurophysiological damage incurred for lack of stimulation due to poor fitting. > The analogy to the drugstore reading glasses > was made clear; OTC quality was adequate to start with a low entry > cost, and would generate demand for better quality leading to > professional services. Indeed, Magilen's argument and experience seems > to support this marketing rationale. > > Clearly the Songbird products have many limitations, and the idea of > people "treating themselves" raises many professional's eyebrows (in > hearing and nearly all medically-related fields). However, it still > seems to me that at least one company has fulfilled Killion's desire, > while at least nominally following some of Magilen's suggestions for > OTC informational packets. I am confused why Killion and his company > cannot follow suit within the existing set of regulations. > > For the record, I have no affiliation with any of the companies or > participants. I admit to being slightly more sympathetic toward > Magilen's desire for tighter regulation, though I think offering a > low-cost entry device makes a great deal of sense. > > Cheers, > Peter > > : Peter Marvit, PhD > <pmarvit(at)som.umaryland.edu> : : Dept. Anatomy and Neurobiology > University of Maryland Medical School: : 685 W. Baltimore Street, HSF > 222 Baltimore, MD 21201 : : phone 410-706-1272 > fax 410-706-2512 :