Ricketts T A, Bentler R A
University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242.
J Am Acad Audiol. 1992 Mar;3(2):101-12.
The purpose of this project was to compare the Widex Quattro and the Ensoniq Sound Selector hearing instruments as to benefits (real and perceived) and overall convenience. It is the premise of the Ensoniq designers that a high fidelity (wide band) hearing aid is adequate for all listening conditions due to its exact reproduction of sound. Conversely, it is the premise of the Quattro designers that a hearing aid user needs access to multiple frequency responses (memories) for optimal benefit in different communicative situations. Subjective measures showed little differentiation between the two instruments, except for the Ease of Communication subtest of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP). New users rated the Quattro as performing better, while experienced users rated the Ensoniq significantly better. Objective measures indicated some differences in the performance of the two instruments, although these results may be related to the fitting strategies employed.
本项目的目的是比较Widex Quattro和Ensoniq Sound Selector听力仪器在益处（实际和感知到的）及整体便利性方面的差异。Ensoniq设计师的前提是，高保真（宽带）助听器因其对声音的精确再现，适用于所有聆听环境。相反，Quattro设计师的前提是，助听器用户需要获得多种频率响应（记忆），以便在不同的交流情境中获得最佳益处。主观测量结果显示，除了《助听器性能概况》（PHAP）中的沟通便利性子测试外，这两种仪器之间几乎没有差异。新用户对Quattro的评价更高，而有经验的用户对Ensoniq的评价明显更好。客观测量结果表明，这两种仪器的性能存在一些差异，尽管这些结果可能与所采用的验配策略有关。
