Surgery – Surgically implanted vibratory hearing aid
Reexamination Certificate
1999-05-13
2002-03-12
Lacyk, John P. (Department: 3736)
Surgery
Surgically implanted vibratory hearing aid
Reexamination Certificate
active
06354990
ABSTRACT:
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT
Not applicable
REFERENCE TO A “MICROFICHE APPENDIX”
Not applicable
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to hearing aids and more particularly to an improved hearing aid, its method of manufacture and an improved method of compensating for hearing loss. More particularly, the present invention provides an improved method and apparatus for compensating for hearing loss that uses a construction combining a mounting receptacle (for example, a receptacle or modular face plate or semi-modular face plate) with a soft polymeric body that is joined to the mounting member and which encapsulates some of the electronic hearing aid components of the apparatus, the soft polymeric body being sized and shaped to conform to the user's ear canal during use. It may be possible to use a soft polymeric material as the receptacle or face plate.
2. General Background of the Invention
The hearing industry has realized major strides in the development of high-fidelity, high-performance products, the most recent of which is digital signal processing technology. Hearing care professionals expected those advancements to solve the shortcomings of traditional amplification, and to push the market forward. Those expectations have not been fully realized. While these developments have solved many of the problems associated with traditional electronic design and steadily gained market share, they have not fostered overall market growth.
The issues of early acoustic feedback, less than optimum fidelity and intermodulation of the frequency response cannot be completely resolved by electronic manipulation of the signal by either analog or digital means.
Historically, custom-molded ear worn hearing instruments have been limited to an “acrylic pour” process as the means of the construction. With the advent of miniaturization and technological advancement of computer chip programming, the ear-worn instruments have become smaller and are positioned into the bony portion of the ear canal, commonly referred to as “deep insertion technology”.
Developments outside the hearing industry have culminated in a new level of micro-miniaturization of electronic components for industry applications. Consequently, advanced signal processing can be housed in less space than was required for traditional electro-acoustic components.
With the development of programmable hearing aids, using either analog or digital signal processing, custom electronic design has shifted from the manufacturing level to the clinical level. The clinician can now customize the electro-acoustic response via software. It is no longer necessary for the device to be returned to the manufacturer for hardware changes to arrive at the desired electro-acoustic response. However, it is still often necessary to return the device for shell modifications.
In direct contrast to electronic advances within the industry, little or no advancement has been realized in custom prosthetic design. Since the late 1960's, when the custom in-the-ear hearing aid was developed, materials and construction techniques remained virtually unchanged. These materials and techniques were adopted from the dental industry, whereby the customized housing-commonly called a “shell” was constructed using acrylic of 90 point Durometer Hardness Shore D. This construction process provided the structure and the strength of material necessary to protect the electronics.
At the time the acrylic shell was developed, hearing instruments were worn in the relatively forgiving cartilaginous portion of the ear canal. Micro-miniaturization of electronic components, combined with increased consumer demand for a cosmetically acceptable device, has shifted the placement of the hearing aid toward the bony portion of the ear canal.
The bony portion of the canal is extremely sensitive and intolerant of an acrylic shell when that shell is over sized due to standard waxing procedures or is in contact with the canal wall beyond the second anatomical bend. Rigid acrylic that does not compress must pivot in reaction to jaw or head movement, thereby changing the direction of the receiver yielding a distorted acoustic response. In addition, the pivot action causes displacement of the device resulting in unwanted acoustic feedback. This problem has necessitated countless shell modifications, thereby compromising the precision approach of the original dental technology. Many such devices require some modification by the manufacturer. Most manufacturers can expect a high percentage of returns for modification or repair within the first year. Consequently, CIC (completely in canal) shell design has been reduced to more of a craft than a science. Although the recent introduction of the ultra-violet curing process has produced a stronger, thinner shell, the overall Shore Hardness remained unchanged.
The current trend for custom hearing aid placement is to position the instrument toward the bony portion of the ear canal. The ear canal can be defined as the area extending from the concha to the tympanic membrane. It is important to note that the structure of this canal consists of elastic cartilage laterally, and porous bone medially. The cartilaginous portion constitutes the outer one third of the ear canal. The medial two-thirds of the ear canal is osseous or bony. The skin of the osseous canal, measuring only about 0.2 mm in thickness, is much thinner than that of the cartilaginous canal, which is 0.5 to 1 mm in thickness. The difference in thickness directly corresponds to the presence of apocrine (ceruminous) and sebaceous glands found only in the fibrocartilaginous area of the canal. Thus, this thin-skinned thinly-lined area of the bony canal is extremely sensitive to any hard foreign body, such as an acrylic hearing instrument.
Exacerbating the issue of placement of a hard foreign body into the osseous area of the ear canal is the ear canal's dynamic nature. It is geometrically altered by temporomandibular joint action and by changes in head position. This causes elliptical elongation (widening) of the ear canal. These alterations in canal shape vary widely from person to person. Canal motion makes it very difficult to achieve a comfortable, true acoustic seal with hard acrylic material. When the instrument is displaced by mandibular motion, a leakage or “slit leak” creates an open loop between the receiver and the microphone and relates directly to an electro-acoustic distortion commonly known as feedback. Peripheral acoustic leakage is a complex resonator made up of many transient resonant cavities. These cavities are transient because they change with jaw motion as a function of time, resulting in impedance changes in the ear canal. These transients compromise the electro-acoustic performance.
The properties of hard acrylic have limitations that require modification to the hard shell exterior to accommodate anatomical variants and the dynamic nature of the ear canal. The shell must be buffed and polished until comfort is acceptable. The peripheral acoustic leakage caused by these modifications results in acoustic feedback before sufficient amplification can be attained.
Hollow shells used in today's hearing aid designs create internal or mechanical feedback pathways unique to each device. The resulting feedback requires electronic modifications to “tweak” the product to a compromised performance or a “pseudo-perfection”. With the industry's efforts to facilitate the fine-tuning of hearing instruments for desired acoustic performance, programmable devices were developed. The intent was to reduce the degree of compromise, but by their improved frequency spectrum the incidence of feedback was heightened. As a result, the industry still falls well short of an audiological optimum.
A few manufacturers have attempted all-soft, hollow shells as alternatives to acrylic, hollow shells. Unfortunately, soft vinyl materials shrink, discolor, and harden after a relatively short period of wear. Pol
Creel Lynn P.
Desporte Edward J.
Juneau Roger P.
Kinler Kelly M.
Major Michael
Garvey, Smith, Nehrbass & Doody, L.L.C.
Lacyk John P.
Softear Technology, L.L.C.
LandOfFree
Soft hearing aid does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Soft hearing aid, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Soft hearing aid will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2881905