The Occlusion Effect and Ampclusion Effect

Robert W. Sweetow; Chester Z. Pirzanski

doi:10.1055/s-2004-815549

Seminars in Hearing, Table of Contents

Semin Hear 2003; 24(4): 333-344
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-815549

The Occlusion Effect and Ampclusion Effect

Robert W. Sweetow¹ , Chester Z. Pirzanski²

¹Director of Audiology, Professor of Otolaryngology, University of California, San Francisco; San Francisco, California
²Starkey Labs Canada, Mississauga; Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

ABSTRACT

When an individual speaks, laryngeal vocalizations are generated in the ear canal. Normally, these vibrations escape from the external auditory meatus. When the ear canal is blocked by an earmold or hearing aid shell, these vibrations translate into increased low frequency SPL reaching the tympanic membrane. This bone-conducted phenomenon is called the occlusion effect. Hearing aid users also may experience altered perception of their voices due to air conduction of the sound amplified by the hearing instrument. Because this second phenomenon is related to amplification it is termed ampclusion. The origin of the problems can be determined through a systematic approach. Once determined, the effects can be relieved via changes in otoplastics, electroacoustics, and/or counseling.

KEYWORDS

Occlusion - ampclusion - bone conduction - otoplastics - electroacoustics

Full Text

References

REFERENCES

1 Lazenby B, Logan S. Ahlstrom J, Bess F. Self-assessment questionnaire for the elderly: hearing aid dispensary use. Paper presented at the American Speech and Hearing Association Convention, 1985
2 Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: normative data for the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and the Hearing Aid Users Questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol . 1999; 10 67-79
3 Killion M, Wilber L, Gudmundsen G. Zwislocki was right: a potential solution to the “hollow voice” problem (amplified occlusion effect) with deeply sealed earmolds. Hear Instrum . 1988; 39 14-18
4 Pirzanski C. Diminishing the occlusion effect: clinician/manufacturer factors. Hear J . 1998; 51 66-78
5 Kampe S, Wynne M. The influence of venting on the occlusion effect. Hear J . 1996; 49 59-66
6 Sweetow R, Valla A. Effect of electroacoustic parameters on ampclusion in CIC hearing instruments. Hear Rev . 1997; 4 8-22
7 Bryant M, Mueller G, Northern J. Minimal contact long canal ITE hearing instruments. Hear Instrum . 1991; 42 12-50
8 Fagelson M, Martin F. The occlusion effect and ear canal sound pressure level. Audiology. J Am Acad Audiol . 1994; 5 379-383
9 Allen G, Fernandez C. The mechanism of bone conduction. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol . 1960; 69 5-28
10 Von Bekesy G. Experiments in Hearing New York: McGraw-Hill; 1960
11 Zwislocki J. Acoustic attenuation between the ears. J Acoust Soc Am . 1953; 25 752-759
12 Von Bekesy G. The structure of the middle ear and the hearing of one's own voice by bone conduction. J Acoust Soc Am . 1949; 21 217-232
13 Painton S. Objective measure of low frequency reduction in canal hearing aids with adaptive circuitry. J Am Acad Audiol . 1993; 4 152-156
14 Dunn H, Farnsworth D. Objective measure of low-frequency amplification reduction in canal hearing aids with adaptive circuitry. J Acoust Soc Am . 1993; 10 184-199
15 Stone M A, Moore B C. Tolerable hearing aid delays. I. Estimation of limits imposed by the auditory path alone using simulated hearing losses. Ear Hear . 1999; 20 182-92
16 Revit L. Two techniques for dealing with the occlusion effect. Hear Instrum . 1992; 43 16-18
17 Wimmer. The occlusion effect from earmolds. Hear Instrum . 1986; 19 57-58
18 Dempsey J. The occlusion effect created by custom canal hearing aids. Am J Otol . 1990; 11 44-46
19 Biering-Sorensen M, Pedersen F, Parving A. Is there a relationship between the acoustic occlusion effect and the sensation of occlusion?. Scan Audiol . 1994; 23 111-116
20 Oliveira R, Hammer B, Stillman A. et al . A look at ear canal changes with jaw motion. Ear Hear . 1992; 13 464-466
21 Carle R, Laugesen S, Nielsen C. Observations on the relations among occlusion effect, compliance, and vent size. J Am Acad Audiol . 2002; 13 25-37
22 Kuk F, Plager A, Pape N. Hollowness perception with noise reduction hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol . 1992; 3 39-45
23 Lybarger S. Earmold venting as an acoustic control factor. In: Studebaker G, Hochberg J, eds. Acoustic Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance, 1st ed Baltimore: University Park Press; 197-217
24 Staab W, Finlay B. A fitting rationale for deep fitting canal hearing instruments. Hear Instrum 1991;42:8-10, 50.
25 Westermann S. The occlusion effect. Hear Instrum . 1987; 38 43
26 Pogash R, Williams C. Occlusion and own-voice issues: protocols and strategies. http://www.hearingreview.com/articles.ASP?Article ID=H0103F03
27 Chasin M, Pirzanski C, Hayes D, Mueller G. Real ear occluded gain as a clinical predictor. Hear Rev . 1997; 4 22-26
28 Bongiovanni R, Auriemmo J, Kuk F. Is a longer canal length always better when fitting CIC hearing instruments?. Hear Rev . 2001; 8 44-77
29 Mims Voll L, Lyons P. Frequency and effectiveness of in-office modifications with CIC hearing instrument fittings. Hear Rev . 1995; 2 38-50
30 Pirzanski C, Berge B. Distant learning course ACD 602. Research assignments submitted by doctoral students. Pennsylvania College of Optometry, School of Audiology; 2000-2002
31 Ricketts T. Directional hearing aids. Trends Amplf . 2001; 5 139-176
32 Fortune T. Real ear compression ratios: the effects of venting and adaptive release time. Am J Audiol . 1997; 6 55-63
33 Studebaker G, Cox R. Sidebranch and parallel vent effects in real ears and in acoustical and electrical models. J Am Audiol Soc . 1977; 3 108-116
34 Mueller G. CIC hearing aids: what is their impact on the occlusion effect?. Hear J . 1994; 47 29-34
35 Kuk F, Ludvigsen C. Occlusion management I: understanding variables (in press). 2002.
36 Punch J, Beck E. Low frequency response of hearing aids and judgments of aided speech quality. J Speech Hear Dis . 1980; 45 325-335