Articles by H. Gustav Mueller

Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures

Mueller, H. Gustav; Picou, Erin M.

The Hearing Journal. 63(5):27-28,30,32, May 2010.

Using data from the survey reported on in this month's Cover Story, the authors analyze the use (and under-use) of real-ear measurement and discuss for what purposes and in what ways practitioners are applying it.

Three pre-tests: What they do and why experts say you should use them more

Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 63(4):17-18,20,22-24, April 2010.

Many tests have been devised to help practitioners predict which type of fitting will benefit a particular patient most. The developers of three pre-fitting measures tell the author how and why to use them.

Twenty years later: A NEW Count-The-Dots method

Killion, Mead C.; Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 63(1):10,12-14,16-17, January 2010.

In 1990, The Hearing Journal published a quick and easy way for clinicians to calculate from a patient's audiogram what percentage of speech sounds the person could hear. The “Count-The-Dots” Method caught on quickly, and is used all over the U.S. and beyond. This month, the creators of the original “Count-The-Dots” Method are back with an updated version reflecting what has been learned in the past 20 years about the contribution of speech cues at 6000 Hz and above to understanding.

Whose NAL-NL fitting method are you using?

Ricketts, Todd A.; Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 62(8):10,12,14,16-17, August 2009.

In a change from Page Ten's usual format, the authors report on an important study showing that probe-mic measures on the same fitting vary, especially in the high frequencies, depending on which system is used. They discuss the implications of this finding.

A candid round table discussion on open-canal hearing aid fittings

Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 62(4):19-22,24-26, April 2009.

HJ's contributing editor brought together Drs. Ruth Bentler, Catherine Palmer, Todd Ricketts, Robert Sweetow, and Michael Valente for a spirited colloquy on issues related to the fastest-growing type of fitting.

How loud is allowed? It's a three-peat!

Mueller, H. Gustav; Bentler, Ruth A.

The Hearing Journal. 61(4):10,12,14-15, April 2008.

In case readers missed it before, the authors still believe that when it comes to fitting hearing aids, more attention should be paid to loudness measures and hearing aid maximum output selection. And now they have more evidence than ever.

Prescribing maximum hearing aid output: Differences among manufacturers found

Mueller, H. Gustav; Bentler, Ruth A.; Wu, Yu-Hsiang

The Hearing Journal. 61(3):30-36, March 2008.

In view of the importance of maximum output on the satisfaction of hearing aid wearers, those who fit them should bear in mind that different manufacturers prescribe very different maximum outputs for hearing aids programmed for the same hearing loss.

Data logging: It's popular, but how can this feature be used to help patients?

Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 60(10):19,26, October 2007.

While data logging is quickly becoming a standard feature in hearing aids, it's clear that a good many dispensers ignore it. Our Cover Story features reports from clinicians on how and when data logging can benefit patients.

The Best of 2006: Hearing Aids

Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 60(6):36,38-39, June 2007.

In this annual HJ exclusive, our Journal Club selects the best audiology articles from the past year and hails the authors who wrote them. A unique reading guide for the well-informed hearing professional.

The Best of 2005: Hearing Aids

Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 59(6):24-25,28,30, June 2006.

HJ's Journal Club returns to tell our readers about the best journal articles of 2005 in the areas of hearing aids, diagnostic audiology, rehabilitative audiology, and hearing science. A unique reading guide for the well-informed hearing professional.

Trouble-shooting hearing aid fitting issues: The case of the missing “ping”

Mueller, H. Gustav; Hawkins, David B.

The Hearing Journal. 59(1):10-20, January 2006.

A golfer who missed hearing the sweet sound of a well-struck drive serves as an object lesson on how to accommodate a patient's special request. However, it also demonstrates why you and your patient may wish you hadn't.

Digital noise reduction: Much ado about something?

Mueller, H. Gustav; Ricketts, Todd A.

The Hearing Journal. 58(1):10-18, January 2005.

Two hearing aid experts discuss and sometimes debate what digital noise reduction can do and what it can't.

Emerging hearing aid research: Mountains of new information

Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 57(10):21-26, October 2004.

Every other August, researchers from a round the world convene in a site in the foothills of the Sierras overlooking Lake Tahoe. There they offer some intriguing glimpses into the future of amplification. This month, HJ's contributing editor discusses some key papers from the 2004 conference that may have implications for readers who select and fit hearing aids.

The hearing aid occlusion effect: Measurement devices compared

MacKenzie, Douglas J.; Mueller, H. Gustav; Ricketts, Todd A.; More

The Hearing Journal. 57(9):30,34-36,38-39, September 2004.

The authors report the findings from a study testing the effectiveness of various types of equipment for measuring occlusion.

In the words of Shakespeare: Fitting test protocols are “more honored in the breach than the observance”

Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 56(10):19-20,22-24,26, October 2003.

As HJ's contributing editor reveals, the gap between recommended test protocols for fitting hearing aids and what dispensing audiologists and hearing aid specialists actually do is very wide.

There's less talking in barrels, but the occlusion effect is still with us

Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 56(8):10,12,14,16, August 2003.

How often has a hearing aid patient told you, “I hate the way it makes my voice sound”? This month, HJ's consulting editor and editor of Page Ten examines why the occlusion effect occurs and discusses strategies for dealing with this perennial problem.

A candid round-table discussion on modern digital hearing aids and their features

Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 55(10):23-24,26,28-29,32,34,35, October 2002.

A panel of prominent audiologists who have conducted independent clinical trial research on digital hearing aids share their insights on the real benefits and limitations of such features as multiple channels, directional-microphone technology, and digital noise reduction found in many of today's most advanced products.

How loud is allowed? It's déjà vu all over again

Mueller, H. Gustav; Bentler, Ruth A.

The Hearing Journal. 55(1):10,12,14,16,18, January 2002.

Much has occurred in the 7 years since the co-authors last tackled the question, “How loud is allowed?” when it comes to hearing aid fittings. The authors offer an update on this issue, whose importance is underscored by the MarkeTrak finding that fewer than half of contemporary hearing aid users report being comfortable with loud sounds.

Speech audiometry and hearing aid fittings: Going steady or casual acquaintances?

Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 54(10):19-29, October 2001.

Once upon a time, speech audiometry was a standard part of a hearing aid fitting. Today, although many talk about it, there appears to be more talk than action. However, a number of new speech tests have been developed and it appears that there may be a trend back toward greater use of speech audiometry.

Probe-mic assessment of digital hearing aids? Yes, you can!

Mueller, H. Gustav

The Hearing Journal. 54(1):10,12,14,17, January 2001.

Dispelling the myth that DSP hearing aids are not conducive to real-ear measurements, the Journal's contributing editor explains why probe-mic testing is especially important with digital instruments.