Abstract
Choice of the earmold for a particular individual is perhaps the most subjective of all decisions made by clinicians in hearing aid fitting. The four earmold designs used in this study were standard-long, standard-short, belled-vented, and cavernous. Conclusions were: 1) performance differences in earmolds of contrasting design can be assessed by discrimination scores with monosyllabic word lists of equal difficulty; 2) among the physical measures taken of the earmold-receiver systems, frequency-response overall range (HAIC) ranked the devices in agreement with group responses to a word identification task; and 3) these data offer a basis for endorsement of the standard-long and cavernous-short earmold types over the other two with their superiority evident in each of the discrimination categories of excellent, good, and poor.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.