<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com">
<title>Trends in Amplification current issue</title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com</link>
<description>Trends in Amplification RSS feed -- current issue</description>
<prism:coverDisplayDate>September 2009</prism:coverDisplayDate>
<prism:publicationName>Trends in Amplification</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>1084-7138</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/147?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/149?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/181?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/190?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/206?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/215?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://tia.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif" />
</channel>

<image rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif">
<title>Trends in Amplification</title>
<url>http://tia.sagepub.com:80/icons/banner/title.gif</url>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com</link>
</image>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/147?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Moving at the Speed of Sound: Scientific Innovation in Auditory Research]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/147?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Limb, C. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809348498</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Moving at the Speed of Sound: Scientific Innovation in Auditory Research]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>148</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>147</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/149?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Auditory Midbrain Implant: A Review]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/149?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The auditory midbrain implant (AMI) is a new hearing prosthesis designed for stimulation of the inferior colliculus in deaf patients who cannot sufficiently benefit from cochlear implants. The authors have begun clinical trials in which five patients have been implanted with a single shank AMI array (20 electrodes). The goal of this review is to summarize the development and research that has led to the translation of the AMI from a concept into the first patients. This study presents the rationale and design concept for the AMI as well a summary of the animal safety and feasibility studies that were required for clinical approval. The authors also present the initial surgical, psychophysical, and speech results from the first three implanted patients. Overall, the results have been encouraging in terms of the safety and functionality of the implant. All patients obtain improvements in hearing capabilities on a daily basis. However, performance varies dramatically across patients depending on the implant location within the midbrain with the best performer still not able to achieve open set speech perception without lip-reading cues. Stimulation of the auditory midbrain provides a wide range of level, spectral, and temporal cues, all of which are important for speech understanding, but they do not appear to sufficiently fuse together to enable open set speech perception with the currently used stimulation strategies. Finally, several issues and hypotheses for why current patients obtain limited speech perception along with several feasible solutions for improving AMI implementation are presented.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lim, H. H., Lenarz, M., Lenarz, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809348372</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Auditory Midbrain Implant: A Review]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>180</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>149</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/181?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Filtering to Match Hearing Aid Insertion Gain to Individual Ear Acoustics]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/181?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>When hearing aid gain is prescribed by software, gain is calculated based on the average acoustics for the age of patient, gender, mold type, and so on. The acoustics of the individual&rsquo;s ear often vary from the average values, so there will be a mismatch between the prescribed gain and the real-ear gain. Real-ear measurement can be used to verify the gain and adjust it to meet targets, but the quality of the match will be limited by the number of channels and the flexibility of the hearing aid. A potential way to improve this process is to generate a filter that compensates for variations in real-ear insertion gain due to individual ear acoustics. Such a filter could be included in the processing path of a digital hearing aid. This article describes how such a filter can be generated using the windowing method, and the principle is demonstrated in a real ear. The approach requires communication between the real-ear measurement and hearing aid programming software. A finite impulse response filter with group delay just over 2 ms matched insertion gain to target values within the acceptable tolerance defined by British Society of Audiology guidelines.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bell, S. L.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809344974</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Filtering to Match Hearing Aid Insertion Gain to Individual Ear Acoustics]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>189</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>181</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/190?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Effects of Bilateral Electric and Bimodal Electric--Acoustic Stimulation on Language Development]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/190?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>There is no doubt that cochlear implants have improved the spoken language abilities of children with hearing loss, but delays persist. Consequently, it is imperative that new treatment options be explored. This study evaluated one aspect of treatment that might be modified, that having to do with bilateral implants and bimodal stimulation. A total of 58 children with at least one implant were tested at 42 months of age on four language measures spanning a continuum from basic to generative in nature. When children were grouped by the kind of stimulation they had at 42 months (one implant, bilateral implants, or bimodal stimulation), no differences across groups were observed. This was true even when groups were constrained to only children who had at least 12 months to acclimatize to their stimulation configuration. However, when children were grouped according to whether or not they had spent any time with bimodal stimulation (either consistently since their first implant or as an interlude to receiving a second) advantages were found for children who had some bimodal experience, but those advantages were restricted to language abilities that are generative in nature. Thus, previously reported benefits of simultaneous bilateral implantation early in a child&rsquo;s life may not extend to generative language. In fact, children may benefit from a period of bimodal stimulation early in childhood because low-frequency speech signals provide prosody and serve as an aid in learning how to perceptually organize the signal that is received through a cochlear implant.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nittrouer, S., Chapman, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809346160</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Effects of Bilateral Electric and Bimodal Electric--Acoustic Stimulation on Language Development]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>205</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>190</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/206?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Middle Ear Implantable Hearing Devices: An Overview]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/206?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Hearing loss affects approximately 30 million people in the United States. It has been estimated that only approximately 20% of people with hearing loss significant enough to warrant amplification actually seek assistance for amplification. A significant interest in middle ear implants has emerged over the years to facilitate patients who are noncompliant with conventional hearing aides, do not receive significant benefit from conventional aides, or are not candidates for cochlear implants. From the initial studies in the 1930s, the technology has greatly evolved over the years with a wide array of devices and mechanisms employed in the development of implantable middle ear hearing devices. Currently, these devices are generally available in two broad categories: partially or totally implantable using either piezoelectric or electromagnetic systems. The authors present an up-to-date overview of the major implantable middle ear devices. Although the current devices are largely in their infancy, indications for middle ear implants are ever evolving as promising studies show good results. The totally implantable devices provide the user freedom from the social and practical difficulties of using conventional amplification.</p>]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Haynes, D. S., Young, J. A., Wanna, G. B., Glasscock, M. E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/1084713809346262</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Middle Ear Implantable Hearing Devices: An Overview]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>214</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>206</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/215?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Instructions to Authors]]></title>
<link>http://tia.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/13/3/215?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-09-17</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1177/10847138090130030701</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Instructions to Authors]]></dc:title>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>13</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>217</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>215</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Articles</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>