Anyone tried the Earlens and have any advice?

@dmrljes said:

How do you set different target rules on separate programs? I don’t see any options in fitting software for that, if you change target rule it applies to every program.

Relative to previous comments made here: Anyone tried the Earlens and have any advice? - #19 by jim_lewis, here’s what I found out by going back to Smart Fit 1.3 on an older computer.

In Smart Fit 1.3, one could pick the fitting algorithm under Target Rule but it wasn’t applied until one right-mouse-clicked on a program tab and applied the change either to just the current program or all programs (one ear or both ears). So by only applying an algorithm to one specific program, you could have programs active at the same time that ran under different fitting algorithms. The change survives saving the patient profile to disk, closing, and reopening Smart Fit. It’s not ephemeral (and the difference in sound between programs showed up in my ears when using the Smart 3D app). In Smart Fit 1.8, as soon as you pick the fitting algorithm under Target Rule and apply it, it’s applied to all programs immediately. So in March, 2019 with Smart Fit 1.3, one could do with ReSound Quattro’s as with OPNs and experiment at the same time with different fitting algorithms used on different copies of the same program to compare the sound differences between fitting algorithms at the same time in the same environment but no longer (unless using the DIY info, you latch onto a copy of Smart Fit 1.3). It looks like the exact fit, though, may have changed a bit between version 1.3 and 1.8 so whatever one concluded using v1.3 might not carry over into v1.8.

The patient profile page in v1.3 did show the User Experience level setting in a dropdown but not the fitting algorithm in use. I guess ReSound wanted to eliminate the possibility that one could carelessly have one program set to one fitting algorithm and other programs accidentally set to something else. So now all programs have to use the same fitting algorithm.

Edit_Update: I also found my original post from back in March, 2019 where I described copying Neville and Volusiano’s experimental OPN idea for my Quattro’s in the Edit_Update note at the end: https://forum.hearingtracker.com/t/gn-hearing-introduces-resound-linx-quattro/37562/235?u=jim_lewis (member archive) (probably using Smart Fit v1.3)

@MDB said:

I think there should be more patient education letting people know that things are going to sound different because they haven’t heard certain sounds for a long time and that softer sounds will sound much louder because otherwise they wouldn’t be audible. Basically a brief explanation of dynamic range and compression.

That holds for medium losses.

However if you have significant cochlear damage (or dead regions *), it probably distorts sounds. And chasing the dragon ‘natural sound’ is just doomed to endless unhappiness. Then it’s definitely better to adapt to the aids ASAP and give brain time to learn to work with that messy sound and extract the info nevertheless.

About * - there’s hypothesis that if you need more than 60db, you probably have something dead out there. And whenever there are dead cells or almost dead, they either produce distortion because they’re broken or adjacent cells (on cohlea, not on the audiogram) get ‘something’, which doesn’t correspond to any proper frequency that was sent.

My hypothesis is that if you don’t hear pure tones, but they have some prrrr or other type of vibration, you might found dead regions and you definitely have distortion that will affect everything.

I think I even somewhere read about that, but let’s say this is just an assumption based on my mess.

So for low frequency loss if there’s vibration and not tone, open fit and NAL-NL1 is worth trying - to remove all that bass that only brings distortion and not useful information.

For high frequency loss with vibrations, I’d go with frequency lowering and with that move skipping that damaged part of the cochlea.

What I hear is miles away from natural, it is sharp and still distorted but less than if I just use headphones and amplify. But, I get comprehension with HAs that I can’t get with headphones plus without them yes it sounds natural with a great earplug. At least those things I can detect.

And I opted for putting HA in good ear, sending distorted sound (this time my guess is that I just hear how poor those speakers are ) but having them balanced for streaming. Ability to follow things streamed into my ears in stereo is worth every cent.

I didn’t know that in games you can hear at which side something happened. With this 2 ear setup I can, without streaming even, only with soundbar.

You start noticing things once you start learning about sound in ears. I think that also helps with training the brain.

@Blacky said:

That holds for medium losses.

Many people with severe to profound losses also have medium losses. It’s likely the medium losses that most need the gain. Oticon has some Audiology Online classes on difficult to fit losses and they stress that the idea is to aid the losses that are aidable and not try to give the most gain to the biggest losses.

Ok, I meant that giving story about dynamic range and not hearing some sounds for some time works for people who have at most medium losses.

Since you said that patients should be educated about that. I agree. I just think that harder losses and if they have any vibration during audiogram should get additional story explaining things. Since then it’s not about sounds you now hear and previously you didn’t but about distortion.

Once you get into significant cochlear damage, then it’s better to work with what’s left than introduce even more distortion. With that I agree. I also checked some course on that, plus read a ton. And that’s exactly what I was referring to. Because damaged cochlea gives distortion and unnatural sound, and it is not about dynamic range left.

So, I think there are one or two explanation stories about what is expected from the HA sound people should get, depending on their loss.

I just found out about this looking online for an audiologist. Seems pretty expensive.

We put a page together here:

Earlens Hearing System Hearing Aids | Reviews and Prices11

The Earlens Hearing System is a rechargeable hearing aid that uses direct mechanical vibrations to amplify sound, featuring a custom-fitted tympanic lens, ear tip, and behind-the-ear sound processor. Priced between $8,000 and $10,000, it offers...

I do wonder if anyone in the forum has tried the Earlens 2.0 ?

How about someone (not me, preferably one with experience with this technology) starting a new discussion group on the latest development called Earlens Earlens | Patients - Your Hearing Aid Device & Solution20 I just saw their ad in today’s San Francisco Chronicle. I am interested in this because I will then have a way to compare this device to regular hearing aids which I am currently wearing. Thanks.