Perhaps I am living in my own middle aged ex-musician/audiophile bubble with too much time on my hands, but…
When I took mum (yes, the 96 year old one) to the audiologist yesterday, the audio asked me about the devices I was wearing (for my own moderate loss). I told her they were analogue devices based on k-amp technology and sold under the Etymotic brand.
Granted, I knew nothing about the k-amp or Etymotic or its founder Mead Killion until I began my own online research a couple of years back, but the audio quite literally had no idea what I was talking about.
Am I expecting too much? Shouldn’t any trained and interested audiologist know something about the development of hearing aid technology over the years?
If the aud was young they possibly don’t know very much (in a practical sense) about analogue aids. I’m old and only ever had BT aids in the last 12-15 years. I’ve not had any experience with analogue aids either. Therefore I don’t know anything about them either.
It’s hard to answer what they should know, especially industry information. I would expect there’s a real divide between analog and digital eras amongst audis. I wouldn’t be surprised the majority won’t know anything about analog, or just one of a few audis in a larger practice.
My point, if I hadn’t made it clear, is that these trained professionals should be expected to know something about the history and development of their industry, shouldn’t they?
I wasn’t specifically raising any analogue versus digital argument.
Possibly an age thing. Etymotic was a big thing 25 years ago, but they basically got wiped out by the step to digital.
The D-mic and other K-Amp circuit essentially disappeared as each manufacturer developed their own digital platforms. I’d expect there’s a whole bunch of audiologists out there who have no concept of an analogue platform at all.
You could have well over 10 years fitting experience and never been involved with analogue at all, even during your degree training.
No. And I’m no audi here! While audiology is a fairly narrowly-defined profession, I think most medical professionals focus on the END result. That means a win-win, where the doc administers treatment, and the patient’s condition is improved. If that is the super-ordinate goal, then the audi (or doctor) would not have a reason to know past history of treatments or devices. That would only come with sheer AGE and years being in the practice.
What I think audis need beyond DESPERATELY is a geek squad - or a profession that’s focused on the technology of hearing care: aids (make, model), features/options/programs, accessories, and most important, how to make the total solution package WORK for the person buying it.
We no longer just buy aids and walk out the door. We need to know how to stream audio on phones (BT, cell phone, apps), TVs (cables, devices), crowded places (accessories to beam sound). THAT is what I tell every audi I see. Hire this person and s/he will complete the sale and give the clinic a very VERY unique competitive advantage.
My own audi is a young mom with a couple boys under 6. I’m already encouraging her to make those kids audi-savvy. Get them curious about how these devices work together and then take it on as a career!
Things will only get more complex over time. Now, I hope I didn’t hijack the thread, but since you asked if audis should know about the history of things, I’d say again, NO! Let them know about the total solution package the better to serve US.
Great question, and as a fellow audiophile i can say without a doubt that far too few audis have any knowledge, or interest in Audio, as it applies to Music.
I’ve dealt with at least 8 audis, and they are to a person, strictly focused on speech.
The only sources of HA help for audiophiles, and musicians seems to lie with a select few, such as Marshall Chasin.
BTW, i love my Ety ER4Sr!
I certainly wasn’t promoting one either! I’m just thinking of them as definite eras in HA. The audis I’ve seen are half my age, working the Windows based setup programs didn’t even seem natural to them.
The other thing to remember, audiologists are dependent on the patient to explain what the patient is really hearing, and the expectation of the patient. A good audiologist will listen intently and work to make the possible adjustments to help the patient.
So don’t expect the audiologist to read your mind or be able to hear what you are hearing. The hearing test and audiogram is only a starting point to get hearing aids correctly fitted.
For me, how much I expect individual audiologists to know depends on their qualifications. I can only describe my limited experience. I first went to someone with all kinds of support staff and credentials, possibly including a Ph.D or an M.D. if I had used him, he would have charged me accordingly, but perhaps not provided much service because my needs were relatively minimal. With my hearing situation, my needs were very well met by a California credentialed Costco audiologist. So instead of paying $6,000 to a highly trained audiologist I did not really need, I paid Costco about $1,500 and got what I needed.
I couldn’t agree more! I can see from the posts here and in the FB group that the technological side of digital HAs is a source of discussion and confusion for many. Fortunately there’s a lot of helpful people online too, though it seems largely self learned and idiomatic.
As an Audi, can you tell us how does product training work? What’s covered?
I think I misunderstood the original question. I believe no one should be concerned that an audi doesn’t know about products they don’t sell. Why should they? They should only need to be experts about what they prescribe. I don’t legitimately expect Ferrari dealer people to know much about Teslas.
Thanks all for your comments.
I guess my initial post was more or less just a philosophical point. I remember having to suffer a weekly legal history class when studying law even though it had very little to do with current legal practise. Don’t medical professionals have to suffer the same?!
(I know the answer of course, so no explanation needed)
If you’re asking me, I’m NO AUDI! I’m the patient - for about 35 yrs now. It would be really enlightening to know how product training works and what’s covered. The limited answer I have (from asking an audi years ago) is that they get certified in different makes/models after taking a weekender (or longer) class. I’m guessing just the basic software is what’s covered: the program, setting up a pair of aids, saving the settings, fine-tuning, etc.
This is a good start, but aids have evolved SO FAR BEYOND just the set-up and a warm “g’bye!” We need to know how to pair + connect them to multiple devices (cell phone, TV, laptop, accessories). I don’t know of a single audi who can do that. It isn’t rocket science but it does take training, experience and a curious mind who really cares about the TOTAL SOLUTION for hearing care.
I don’t want AI in my aids to tell me I’ve fallen down or my heart is racing. I’ll KNOW that. I want to know how to get my Phonak TV Connector to stream audio reliably given the XYZ of my home theatre setup.
Ah, I’m preaching to the choir. We are still in the dark ages of what we need, and instead being sold expensive medical devices without being able to optimize them.
Part of the difficulty here is that once you get the ‘hood’ off a hearing aid, things get quite complex fairly quickly. This is sometimes an issue for an intake of clinicians who take a more ‘human’ view of audiology.
Now, due to my unusual entry route into the industry I could still draw you an electret mic or conventional receiver by hand and explain the operating principles. Unfortunately like all knowledge, the more technically specific it is, the shorter the half life of the information. So in a course where you’d presumably get a limited proportion of time to teach the tech: the current stuff would be a priority and you’d be looking at developing tech too.
(Even the electret is going to get fully superseded by the MEMs tech as we go forward)
In the context of hearing aids, I’d suggest that courses are likely to shift towards some basics on the hardware, quantisation/processing and then a pile of info on connectivity, MFi/Bluetooth etc. Some Audiologists will enjoy this, others will see it as a technical module they have to get 40% at to pass and just regard a hearing aid as a ‘black-box’ device.
In terms of actual fitting, patient empathy and commercial success; knowing what goes on inside the box has way less impact than you might imagine.
Given that digital HAs have been the norm for some time now, I would value knowledge of the digital HAs over the last decade and knowledge of market trends over historical minutiae. I am a CPA and began practicing in 1980. I can run a “modern” 10 key and a computer well. I know about the old crank 10 key calculators, and a partner when I first started could run one well, but I have no desire to run one of those dinosaurs. I doubt if the younger generation of CPAs even know the old crank 10 keys ever existed - and it won’t impact their ability to do their job in today’s world one bit.
If you expect your AuD to know about analog HAs, where does it stop? Should they know the history of the ear horns too? Just like your local car dealer doesn’t know much about buggy whips (it’s transportation history), I would not expect a younger AuD to know about currently obsolete HAs that were never relevant to their practice.
If a new client comes into your practice, and they are a musician wearing analog aids, does not that knowledge help you fit them? Certainly it helps your interaction. After all, analog aids are not ancient history, people are still wearing them. Ear trumpets, not so much.
I can legitimately see why it’s not a prominent part of current syllabuses though.
Like I said, many people land in Audiology courses from the biology/pathology side or they do it as a Masters from that side of academia.
I can try to describe how a Class D receiver uses a rapidly clocked, pulse-width modulated signal that requires four wires to run, but half of them aren’t listening now as they’re wondering what it has to do with their study of basilar membrane dysfunction.
