Undo-redo feature

Decided to start a new spinoff thread rather than posting in the frequency-lowering thread.

Frequency-lowering is one of those things that’s likely to make the patient regret that he asked for it, at least the first try or two. And like all such things, it might send us running back to the provider for an urgent undo. That’s a pain for us and them.

So, is there a good reason why all HA’s can’t have a one-level undo-redo feature, activated through the app? It would let you undo all the changes made at your most recent HCP visit, and then redo them if you want. Go back and forth to compare, as many times as you want.

It’ll require software changes in the aid, the fitting software, and the app. Nothing difficult that I can see, and not a lot of memory. Seems like it could really help.

1 Like

For remote assistance updates for ReSound/Jabra aids there is the ability to apply the new settings, then roll back to the previous settings if you choose.


Don’t know if you would consider the feature related but I seem to remember that Widex aids a while back had an A/B tuning feature in the smartphone app. “Which do you like better? A? or B?” So that sort of thing within whatever limits are allowed might allow you to self-tune your HA’s in a comparative way and (only somewhat?) effectively rollback changes. With any such sort of A/B comparison, it might be good if the HA’s (or the smartphone app) were possessed with a little bit of AI that could sense what was going on in the environment, noise?, wind?, other voices?, sudden loud noises? and offer you smart A/B choices that were useful to the environment that you were in rather than, for instance, starting out by offering to tune noise suppression for you when there is no noise currently in the environment. OTH, if the darn things sensed that you already had noise suppression turned up to the max yet there really was no noise present, an intelligent A/B choice offering might offer to turn noise suppression off or down and see whether you liked the change. So maybe my comment here is off-topic to the complete rollback to last fitting adjustments that you suggest but it would be something good to have in one’s toolbox to deal with the “I don’t like the way my HA’s currently sound” conundrum that we stumble over from time to time.

@jay_man2, i guess that’s because ReSound doesn’t trust remote updates, or they think the HCP and/or patient doesn’t trust them, or the regulators don’t trust them. But it’s there to use anyway…

@jim_lewis, the critical difference between your suggestion and mine is that yours involves individual settings. That kind of feature will need continuous maintenance as new settings are added to the aids. The need for maintenance produces pressure to remove the feature if it isn’t heavily used, as illustrated perhaps by the statement that Widex had, not has the feature.

My suggestion involves the entire HA configuration, so it isn’t affected by individual settings, and ongoing maintenance is greatly reduced if not eliminated. So if it’s implemented then it might actually stay around.

I disagree that it’s a trust issue with remote update rollbacks. I can’t even fathom going down that line of thinking.

I’ve requested remote updates that didn’t have the result that I wanted or expected, and decided to roll it back.

I think remote assistance is a great feature, and the ability to roll an update back if it doesn’t work out is a bonus.


You’re right. I’m a distrustful guy who found a calling as a programmer… I still think it could be a regulatory thing. What with HA’s being medical devices, remote setting is a variety of telehealth. Not only aren’t you in the same room as the professional who’s adjusting your devices, you aren’t even in real-time communication with them. They can’t see your reaction to the adjustments. So perhaps the regulators mandate that you be given a way to back out the changes. Still, we agree that it’s a useful feature. It could be made available independent of remote settings.

With picking out the use of the word “had” (past tense) vs. “has” (present tense), you’re overinterpreting my use of language. The “had” means I was familiar with the feature in the past from forum discussions but too lazy in the present to go check. Widex still has the feature. It’s called “SoundSense” - Sound Sense Learn - Improve hearing with machine learning. and Widex now claims they’ve improved the feature to include AI to analyze the user’s choices and satisfaction and offer the user better A/B choice comparisons when the user desires future feature changes/improvements.

I don’t see any limit to the A/B comparison scheme - the AI/programming could keep track of whole sets of parameter changes and in kinda like a Windows System Restore over a varying range of A/B comparisons between your entire settings now vs. the whole set of settings that you wistfully remember from 3 months ago. When you read the present Widex description of SoundSense Learn, it’s not clear to me in the A/B comparisons whether they’re just adjusting one setting or a whole slew of settings that might affect a particular environment or a user’s listening experience desire - but I don’t see why the A/B comparison couldn’t be used to compare all settings between two points in time and by choosing the old set of settings over the current, effectively serve as an Undo or Redo at will. And it wouldn’t just be a binary choice between now and one’s most recent past settings but if the HA’s are tracking and reporting all their settings over time, it effectively could be like Apple’s Mac Time Machine to roll back to any date in the past. It’s probably less of a learning curve and less confusing to the user just to have a basic undo/redo feature for switching between “now” and “most recent previous settings.”

In the Oticon, you can selectively enable frequency lowering in one program and not another. So it’s not necessary to have an undo feature if you have a spare program to use to experiment with frequency lowering. You just copy the main program to the spare program then add the frequency lowering feature only to the spare program. This way, you can stop using that spare program if you find that you don’t like it, and get the whole program removed by your HCP in your next visit at your timing convenience. Or if you find it helpful sometimes but don’t want it enabled all the times, then you leave the spare program alone and use it only when you want.

Oticon HAs don’t use any kind of autosense that automatically switch from one program to another, however. The switch has to be done manually. For HAs that use autosense to automatically move in between programs, however, the approach above won’t work.

I stand corrected. And you were right to suggest that this might not be related to what I’m talking about.

Yes, this is a way to enable trying out adjustments or new features, that will work today on some aids (including ReSound I think) and for some users. I’m suggesting something that could be implemented universally.

I find it an interesting idea what the author suggested :blush:

Previously, when I was not a DIYer, I always found it difficult to judge whether a change was an improvement or not. And the time between apointments was too long to remember exactly.
Even now, I find myself going back and forth several times a day, using the sw tool.
Adding manual programs helps me with that. Especially to test special situations. (Car, speech in loud noise etc.)
But I think too many manual programs could easily get confusing for a non-DIYer.

So it would be a good thing if the APP allowed to go back and forth between fitting sessions.

FYI: with Phonak Target it is also possible to have different FL settings for individual programs.

1 Like

Just a note that frequency lowering should be appropriately verified with real-ear measures. I turn on FL for 100% of my patients for whom hearing aids are not giving /s/ access and I find it’s actually very rare that they dislike it. (Mind you, I also try to put anyone who is an obvious frequency lowering candidate into a sonova product.)


Didn’t know that.
Not that it matters to me now, wearing CI processors.

I had a question about Sonova’s FL that @Volusiano has answered.

I know your question is for Neville, Jim, but I think Sonova’s frequency compression is very popular and effective for speech comprehension. It may give people a different opinion when it comes to music, but when you consider that SoundRecover 2 can go as low as 700 Hz (if I remember correctly), it might seem that it’s only slightly slower than 2 KHz on paper, but for speech comprehension, because the sound spectrum is very dense in that mid frequency area, that difference in being able to lower to that low a frequency is more significant than one thinks.


Okay, I’ll edit the question then. That’s a pretty radical shift. No wonder folks say they can hear it. I have SpeechRescue on, in all programs, and I can’t discern it.

The limited research that has been done on frequency lowering strategies tends to show either no difference or is mildly suggestive that frequency compression leads to better outcomes. So from a research perspective, there’s not huge choice from one to another. Note, I’m talking about independent research. All manufacturer research will of course support their own strategy.

Sonova is the only company offering adaptive frequency compression (e.g. it selectively compresses the phonemes that require it) and in my clinical experience it is the most easily accepted. I’m less interested in how low they can go, although it’s nice to have that flexibility. Individuals with severe/profound hearing loss are much more individual in what they require.

Music programs should typically not have frequency lowering.