Summary
Probe-tube measurements in one wearer's ear of six assistive listening devices, including an infrared system, an induction floor loop and a personal amplifier used with a neck loop, comparing telecoil and direct coupling.
Key findings
- The abstract's first two sentences identify the Madsen IGO 1000 and describe in-situ measurements of sample uniformity, volume-control linearity, ear-coupling effects on canal resonance and frequency-response differences.
- Measured three samples each of six devices in the ear of one wearer: a Sound Plus infrared system, a Minicon induction floor loop, a Phonic Ear Phonear, a Radio Shack personal amplifier, and a Williams Sound PockeTalker used with an induction neck loop and wired directly.
- The devices were generally uniform from sample to sample, although both PockeTalker versions varied in gain at all frequencies.
- Devices coupled without a telecoil had broader, flatter responses than devices coupled through a telecoil, while the average differences between telecoil and non-telecoil coupling were minimal.
- The earbud had almost no effect on the ear canal's resonance and lightweight headphones reduced it slightly; the authors conclude that probe-tube measurement is a feasible way to assess assistive listening devices on the wearer.
Limits
Read from the PubMed abstract only. One wearer, equipment of about 1990, and no listener outcomes; the abstract does not give the size of the frequency-response differences.
Read the original
doi.org/10.3109/03005369109079838
Cited in
- Do neckloops give telecoil users good sound from FM, infrared, Wi-Fi and Auracast receivers?Not reliable yet
Cite this source
Salzbrenner LG, Newman CW, Goldstein BA. Probe-tube measurements of ALDs: uniformity, linearity and frequency response differences. British Journal of Audiology 25(2):85-92. April 1991. https://doi.org/10.3109/03005369109079838 (accessed 13 October 2026).
Every finding here cites its source, and who funded each source is labelled. This site does not recommend products. Found an error or a missing study? Suggest a correction.