Phonak Target 5.1 Software Download PORTABLE

Phonak has announced the second generation of TargetMatch with the release of the fitting software Phonak Target 5.1. This enhanced functionality demonstrates more accuracy and precision than traditional verification standards (3) by matching targets within 3dB of the calculated targets across the frequency range.

Technical Data Phonak Bolero Q-P (Q90/Q70/Q50) (HE10 680) Compact power BTE, battery size 13, for mild to severe hearing loss, all audiometric configurations (for product details and available options, please see Product Information or visit www.phonakpro.com). Warning to hearing care professionals: This hearing instrument has an output sound pressure level that can exceed 132 dB SPL. Special care should be taken when fitting this instrument as there is a risk of impairing the residual hearing of the user. Note: Using pure tone measurements with a digital hearing instrument can result in a wavy frequency response. This is an artifact resulting from the use of a narrowband input signal and does not affect the actual performance with naturally occurring broadband input signals. 2cm3 coupler data ANSI S3.22-2009 Output sound pressure level Unless otherwise specified, all data obtained are measured with the hook type HE10 680 and Phonak Target measurement settings. Nominal 130 dB SPL Maximum 133 dB SPL HFA 124 dB SPL dB SPL 140 Ear simulator data EN / IEC 60118 and IEC 60711 Full-on gain (Input 90 dB SPL) 130 110 120 100 90 Output sound pressure level Maximum 135 dB SPL 80 Hz 70 1600 Hz 132 dB SPL 100 dB SPL 140 Full-on gain (Input 90 dB SPL) 130 10000 Acoustic gain Maximum 65 dB 120 110 1000 HFA 57 dB RTG 47 dB dB 80 100 Full-on gain (Input 50 dB SPL) 70 90 60 80 100 1000 Reference test gain (Input 60 dB SPL) 50 Hz 70 40 10000 30 20 Acoustic gain Maximum 71 dB dB 80 10 1600 Hz 68 dB Hz 0 RTG 57 dB 100 1000 10000 60 Reference test gain (Input 60 dB SPL) 50 40 30 Frequency range

Phonak Target 5.1 Software Download

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://urluso.com/2y2RK6 🔥

The presentation of gates continued until the target item was correctly recognized on six consecutive presentations; this meant that random guessing was avoided. If the target item was not correctly recognized, presentation continued until the end of the stimulus. When a target was not correctly identified, its entire duration plus one gate size was calculated as the IP for that item (this scoring method corresponds to our previous studies and to other studies that have employed the gating paradigm; Elliott, Hammer, & Evan, 1987; Hardison, 2005; Lidestam, Moradi, Petterson, & Ricklefs, 2014; Metsala, 1997; Moradi et al., 2013, 2014a; Moradi, Lidestam, Saremi, & Rnnberg, 2014; Walley, Michela, & Wood, 1995).

As noted earlier, the words in our study had average-to-high frequencies, with a small-to-average number of neighbors (three to six alternative words with the same pronunciation of the first two phonemes). The longer IPs in the EHA group relative to the ENH group may be due to poor auditory coding of words during processing of the incoming audiovisual speech signal, which activates a greater number of similar phonological-lexical candidates, or leads to a persistent focus on a non-target lexical item during the gated presentation of words in the EHA group. As a consequence, the EHA group required more of the incoming audiovisual lexical signal (as indicated by IPs) to correctly map the audiovisual speech signal onto the target lexical item in the mental lexicon. The increase in the length of the incoming audiovisual lexical signal required by the EHA group (as indicated by IPs) eventually enabled the group to correctly map the incoming signals onto their corresponding lexical representation in the mental lexicon, which resulted in the same level of accuracy as the ENH group. ff782bc1db