Proof-of-concept for a new ultra-low-cost hearing aid for age-related hearing loss

A new ultra-affordable and accessible hearing aid made from open-source electronics could soon be available worldwide, according to a study published September 23, 2020 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Soham Sinha from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia, US, and colleagues.

Hearing aids are a major tool for individuals with hearing loss — especially age-related hearing loss, which currently affects approximately 226 million adults over the age of 65 worldwide (and is projected to affect 900 million by 2050). However, hearing aid adoption remains relatively low among adults: fewer than 3 percent of adults in low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC) use hearing aids, versus around 20 percent of adults in non-LMIC countries. Though various reasons contribute to this poor uptake, cost is a significant factor. While the price to manufacture hearing aids has decreased over time, the retail price for a pair of hearing aids ranges from $1,000 to $8,000 USD, with the average pair costing $4,700 in the US.

In this study, Sinha and colleagues used mass-produced open source electronics to engineer a durable, affordable, self-serviceable hearing aid that meets most of the targets set by the WHO for mild-to-moderate age-related hearing loss: “LoCHAid.” When mass-produced at 10,000 units including earphones, a coin-cell battery, and holder, LoCHAid costs $0.98 (this doesn’t include labor costs) and is designed to be marketed over-the-counter — or even as a DIY project. LoCHAid doesn’t require specialty parts, and repairs can be completed by a minimally skilled user with access to a soldering iron and solder. Though it’s not currently programmable, simulations show that the LoCHAid is well fitted to a range of age-related hearing loss profiles for men and women between the ages of 60-79 years.

Potential limitations include the device lifetime (currently 1.5 years), as well as its relatively large size, which may not appeal to all consumers. The authors are currently working on a smaller prototype, but this costs more money to produce and would likely require third-party assemblers.

Despite these limitations, LoCHAid shows great potential to benefit individuals impacted by age-related hearing loss, especially those consumers challenged by the affordability and accessibility of current hearing aids available on the market.

The authors add: “In this work, we describe the development and rigorous audiological testing a minimal, 3d-printed and ultra low-cost ($1 in parts) hearing aid. The vision of the device is to make hearing aid accessible and affordable for elderly individuals with age related hearing loss in low- and middle-income countries.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by PLOS. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

Covid: Raab defends ‘targeted’ new coronavirus measures

Some scientists say they don’t go “anywhere near far enough”, while others say they need time to work.

Share Button

Covid-19: Health workers ‘sick’ with fear at thought of second wave

An NHS boss says staff anxiety is the highest he has seen in 30 years as Covid-19 cases rise again.

Share Button

Covid: US death toll passes 200,000

The US is the worst hit country in the world and cases are still continuing to rise, data shows.

Share Button

Studying Your Actual Behaviors

Observing your behaviors and responses like a scientist observing apes in the jungle can be useful for spotting opportunities for growth and improvement.

While it’s tempting to see yourself as a conscious human being making fresh decisions each day, you can also benefit by seeing yourself like an animal or robot responding to stimuli in a pre-programmed or instinctual manner.

Observe your own stimulus-response patterns, as if you never really had a choice in between. Then consider that you can get different behaviors from yourself if you change the stimuli. Give yourself different inputs, and watch your behaviors change automatically.

Then your personal growth challenge isn’t to try harder or to push yourself to be more disciplined or to do a better job of doing what you think you should do. Your challenge is to determine the right stimuli that will trigger your automatic behaviors to get you moving in the right direction.

Pay less attention to how you want to be or how you believe you should be, and pay more attention to how you actually are. Note how you actually behave. Then you can make decisions based on your real behavior patterns to get results instead of hoping that you’ll somehow behave better than you actually do.

As a simple example, I used this mindset to lose 20 pounds in the past four months, and it was pretty easy. I didn’t push myself to change my eating habits. I didn’t try harder. I didn’t have to exert more discipline. I simply changed the inputs to trigger different behavioral outputs. I started food logging, which gave me the additional input of observing which foods and how much I was eating each day. This took only minutes per day and was super easy to maintain as a habit. Upon seeing that extra data each day, my brain automatically updated its models and changed my behaviors, which in turn altered my results. So I changed the stimuli which in turn generated different responses.

By giving myself a little more input attached to every meal, my internal circuitry responded differently. I didn’t have to be or become anyone different. I didn’t have to try to change my behaviors. All I had to do was change the input patterns in a very modest way. Once my brain had a little bit more data, that was enough for it to respond with different behaviors.

Sometimes you can achieve better results by taking your ego and identity out of the picture. See your brain as a pure stimulus-response creature. Imagine that your behaviors are pre-programmed and automatic, and you can’t really control them consciously day by day. Notice that you just react to events most of the time. Then observe that you can change those events to create different inputs for your brain to chew on, and this can cause you to output different behaviors and therefore get different results.

Then it’s just a matter of experimenting with the inputs to see how different changes affect your outputs.

Don’t beat yourself up for not responding differently than you already do. Just observe: Okay, this is how my brain responds to these inputs. Then if you want different results, look for ways to perturb the inputs till your brain starts outputting different behaviors, which will naturally lead to different results.

Share Button

Is rheumatoid arthritis two different diseases?

While disease activity improves over time for most rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, long-term outcomes only improve in RA patients with autoantibodies, according to a new study published this week in PLOS Medicine by Xanthe Matthijssen of Leiden University Medical Center, Netherlands, and colleagues. The findings add to a growing body of evidence that RA with and without autoantibodies are two distinct conditions.

Rheumatoid arthritis is the most common type of autoimmune arthritis, caused when the immune system attacks healthy cells in the linings of joints. Over the last decade it has become clear that there are differences in RA patients with and without RA-associated autoantibodies detectable in their blood. In the new study, researchers followed 1,285 RA patients between 1993 and 2016 through the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort. Data on patients’ symptoms, treatments, autoantibody status, disability and mortality was collected annually.

In total, 823 patients had autoantibody-positive RA and 462 patients had autoantibody-negative RA. In both groups, disease activity decreased significantly over time. Sustained drug-free remission rates increased, as a new treat-to-target treatment strategy became common in 2006 to 2010, in patients with autoantibody-positive, but not autoantibody-negative, RA. Moreover, mortality and functional disability rates decreased with treat-to-target adjustments only in autoantibody-positive patients.

“The disconnection between improvement in disease activity and subsequent improvement in long-term outcomes in RA without autoantibodies suggests that the underlying pathogenesis of RA with and without autoantibodies is different,” the authors say. “We propose that it is time to formally divide RA into type 1, with autoantibodies, and type 2, without autoantibodies, in the hope that it leads to stratified treatment in autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA.”

Dr. Matthijssen notes “In the last decennia research in RA has largely focused on the autoantibody-positive subset. More research on autoantibody-negative RA is urgently needed to identify methods to also improve their long-term outcomes.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by PLOS. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

Nationwide study shows disparities in COVID-19 infection for Black and Hispanic people

A study of around 5.8 million people who receive care from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) found that Black and Hispanic people were substantially more likely than their White counterparts to test positive for COVID-19, although no differences in 30-day mortality were observed between these groups. Christopher Rentsch, Assistant Professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and VA investigator, worked alongside colleagues from VA sites across the U.S. to present these findings in the open-access journal PLOS Medicine on September 22, 2020.

Previous research suggests that people from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds are at greater risk of severe or deadly cases of COVID-19. However, most studies of these disparities have only investigated patients who had already tested positive or who were hospitalized. Understanding disparities in who was tested and whether they tested positive could help inform efforts to reduce the burden of COVID-19 in minority communities.

To improve understanding of testing disparities, Rentsch and colleagues investigated statistical associations between 5.8 million VA patients’ race/ethnicity and their detailed medical records (the VA comprises more than 1,200 points-of-care nationally including hospitals, medical centers, and community outpatient clinics, with around nine million individuals accessing VA care each year), including COVID-19 testing records from February 8 through July 22, 2020. 91% of participants were male; 7% were of Hispanic ethnicity, 19% were Black and 74% were White.

Over 250,000 of the patients studied received a COVID-19 test during the study period, 16,317 tested positive, and 1,057 died within 30 days of testing. Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive a test and were more likely to test positive than White patients, even when accounting for other demographics underlying medical conditions and geographic location (Black vs White adjusted Odds Ratio 1.93, 95% CI 1.85-2.01, p<0.001; Hispanic vs White 1.84, 1.74-1.94, p<0.001).

For positive test rates, the disparity between White and Black patients was greatest in the Midwest and decreased slightly overall during the study. The positive-test disparity between Hispanic and White patients was consistent across regions and over time. Among the cohort of 5.8 million people, although those from minority backgrounds appeared to have a higher burden of COVID-19, for those who tested positive, no racial or ethnic disparities in 30-day death rates were seen.

These findings suggest that Black and Hispanic individuals experience a disproportionate risk of COVID-19 infection, even when accounting for where they live and underlying medical conditions. The authors call for urgent state- and local-level strategies to reduce COVID-19 spread in minority communities.

Dr. Rentsch says: “Minority individuals who received a positive COVID-19 test did not appear to have worse outcomes. However, Black and Hispanic individuals were still twice as likely to testing positive for COVID-19, even after accounting for underlying health conditions, other demographics, and geographic location. Taken together, these findings suggest a substantial excess burden of COVID-19 infection in US minority communities.” He adds: “Understanding what is driving these disparities is vital so that strategies can be tailored to curb the disproportionate epidemics in minority communities…going forward, we are exploring whether racial and ethnic disparities exist at other key stages in the clinical course of COVID-19, from hospitalization to intubation. We appeal to other researchers who have the necessary testing data to investigate disparities in testing and testing positive. This will provide essential information to design effective interventions.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by PLOS. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

Animals lose fear of predators rapidly after they start encountering humans

Most wild animals show a suite of predator avoidance behaviors such as vigilance, freezing, and fleeing. But these are quickly reduced after the animals come into contact with humans through captivity, domestication, or urbanization, according to a study led by Benjamin Geffroy from MARBEC (Institute of Marine Biodiversity, Exploitation and Conservation), publishing September 22nd in the open-access journal PLOS Biology.

The international team of researchers analyzed the results of 173 peer-reviewed studies investigating antipredator traits (behavioral and physiological) in 102 species of domesticated, captive, and urbanized mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and molluscs, while taking into account their position in the Tree of Life.

The scientists found that contact with humans led to a rapid loss of animals antipredator traits, but simultaneously the variability between individuals initially increases and then gradually decreases over the generations in contact with human. The authors suppose that this two-step process is caused by reduced pressure from natural selection as a result of living in a safer environment, followed by artificial selection by humans for docility in the case of domestication.

Animals showed immediate changes in antipredator responses in the first generation after contact with humans, suggesting that the initial response is a result of behavioral flexibility, which may later be accompanied by genetic changes if contact continues over many generations. The researchers also found that domestication altered animal antipredator responses three times faster than urbanization, while captivity resulted in the slowest changes. The results also showed that herbivores changed behavior more rapidly than carnivores and that solitary species tended to change quicker that group-living animals.

The study demonstrates that domestication and urbanization exert similar pressures on animals and can result in rapid behavioral changes. The loss of anti-predator behaviors can cause problems when those domesticated or urbanized species encounter predators or when captive animals are released back into the wild. Understanding how animals respond to contact with humans has important implications for conservation and urban planning, captive breed programs, and livestock management.

Dr. Geffroy adds “While it is well known that the fact of being protected by humans decreases antipredator capacities in animals, we did not know how fast this occurs and to what extent this is comparable between contexts! We also integrated physiological traits in the study but they were much less numerous that behavioral traits. We believe they should be systematically investigated to draw a global pattern of what is happening at the individual level. We need more data to understand whether this occurs also with the mere presence of tourists.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by PLOS. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Share Button

Coronavirus: New Covid restrictions could last six months, says Boris Johnson

Increased fines for rule breakers and limits on wedding numbers are among the new measures in England.

Share Button

Covid: Ban on meeting in houses extended across Scotland

Nicola Sturgeon says visiting other people’s homes will no longer be allowed as part of efforts to slow the virus.

Share Button