↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Measures of Hearing Aid Directivity: Assumption, Accuracy, and Reliability

Overview of attention for article published in Ear and hearing (Print), January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Clinical Measures of Hearing Aid Directivity: Assumption, Accuracy, and Reliability
Published in
Ear and hearing (Print), January 2012
DOI 10.1097/aud.0b013e3182292107
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A number of clinical measures of directivity, including the front-to-back ratio (FBR) and front-to-side ratio (FSR), have been suggested to audiologists to monitor the functionality of hearing aids with directional microphones. These suggestions, however, are based on the assumption that directivity measured clinically changes monotonically when compared with changes measured using the directivity index (DI) and perceptual directional benefit. The objective of the present study was to empirically examine this assumption. In addition, the reliability of the clinical directivity measure was estimated to establish a referral threshold for defective directional microphone hearing aids.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 62 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Master 8 12%
Other 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Engineering 6 9%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 16 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2014.
All research outputs
#24,756,003
of 34,362,729 outputs
Outputs from Ear and hearing (Print)
#1,410
of 2,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,468
of 304,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ear and hearing (Print)
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,362,729 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.