English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Sound pressure level in-situ measurements are sensitive to standing-wave pressure minima and have the potential to result in over-amplification with risk to residual hearing in hearing-aid fittings. Forward pressure level (FPL) quantifies the pressure traveling toward the tympanic membrane and may be a potential solution as it is insensitive to ear-canal pressure minima. Derivation of FPL is dependent on a Thevenin-equivalent source calibration technique yielding source pressure and impedance. This technique is found to accurately decompose cavity pressure into incident and reflected components in both a hard-walled test cavity and in the human ear canal through the derivation of a second sound-level measure termed integrated pressure level (IPL). IPL is quantified by the sum of incident and reflected pressure amplitudes. FPL and IPL were both investigated as measures of sound-level entering the middle ear. FPL may be a better measure of middle-ear input because IPL is more dependent on middle-ear reflectance and ear-canal conductance. The use of FPL in hearing-aid applications is expected to provide an accurate means of quantifying high-frequency amplification.

Comparison of in-situ calibration methods for quantifying input to the middle ear