What is the Smallest Hearing Aid Available?

When selecting a hearing aid, size plays a significant role not only in aesthetics but also in comfort, functionality, and overall lifestyle compatibility. With advancements in hearing aid technology, devices have become increasingly discreet, providing more options for personalizing hearing solutions to meet individual needs.

Hearing Aid Styles Explained

Hearing aids come in a variety of styles, with the most popular being:

• Behind-the-Ear (BTE): These devices rest behind the ear and are connected to the ear via tubing, with either an earmold or an ear dome. BTE models can be further classified into traditional BTEs, where the receiver is housed inside the case, and Receiver-in-the-Canal (RIC)  models, where the receiver is positioned in the ear canal, connected via a thin wire.
• Receiver-in-Canal (RIC): A subtype of BTE hearing aids, RIC devices feature a small component behind the ear, connected to a receiver placed in the ear canal. This offers a more discreet design compared to traditional BTE models.
• In-the-Ear (ITE) Hearing Aids: These devices sit directly in the ear canal, offering various levels of visibility, ranging from completely invisible to slightly noticeable.

Each hearing aid style has distinct advantages and can be customized to meet the specific needs of the user. Within these categories, a wide range of styles and sizes are available, with considerations such as dexterity, battery replacement ease, and cosmetic preference influencing user choice (Hearing Industries Association [HIA], 2012).

In-the-Ear Hearing Aid Styles

For hearing aids that fit within the ear canal, there are four main styles:

• Invisible-In-Canal (IIC): The smallest and most discreet option, fitting deep within the ear canal and virtually invisible.
• Completely-In-Canal (CIC): Slightly larger than the IIC, with a small portion visible at the canal entrance.
• In-The-Canal (ITC): More visible than the IIC and CIC but still compact and comfortable.
• In-The-Ear (ITE): The largest option, often offering additional features such as Bluetooth connectivity and rechargeability.

Traditional ITE hearing aids are custom-made to fit an individual’s ear, although standard, non-custom sizes also exist. Full-shell ITE devices provide the most amplification, while ITC and CIC models are more discreet. Dual microphones are available in some ITC models, enhancing directionality (HIA, 2012).

Smallest Hearing Aid Options

Extended Wear Hearing Aids

Extended wear hearing aids are placed deep in the ear canal, near the tympanic membrane, by an audiologist or otolaryngologist . These devices can be worn continuously for several months. Introduced in 2008, extended wear hearing aids offer significant cosmetic and convenience benefits. Despite using analog technology, they are digitally programmed to match an individual’s hearing loss.

The most well-known extended wear hearing aid is the Phonak Lyric, which is disposable. Once the battery runs out, the device must be replaced by a professional. Candidates for extended wear hearing aids must have ear canals that can accommodate the device, limiting options for some individuals. Additionally, extended wear hearing aids can be more expensive than other styles (Baguley & McFerran, 2011).

The Phonak Lyric is a 100% invisible analog hearing aid, placed just 4 mm from the eardrum. Designed for individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss, it utilizes the natural anatomy of the ear to offer a full, natural listening experience. Unlike traditional hearing aids, Lyric is worn continuously for up to three months without daily maintenance or charging. However, it must be professionally inserted and removed. Furthermore, the Lyric has been shown to benefit tinnitus management due to its continuous use (Baguley & McFerran, 2011). While it is highly discreet, it lacks Bluetooth connectivity and may not be suitable for users who frequently swim or require MRIs. 

Signia Silk Charge&Go

The Signia Silk Charge&Go is a rechargeable digital hearing aid that fits snugly in the ear canal. Unlike the Lyric, it requires nightly charging in a portable case. While it does not support Bluetooth for streaming, it can connect to a companion app for volume and program adjustments. The Silk is a popular choice for individuals seeking a balance between discretion and modern features.

Custom Non-Rechargeable Hearing Aids

Custom-molded hearing aids require an ear impression for a tailored fit and use disposable batteries, which typically last about three days. While they offer exceptional comfort and customization, these devices require more maintenance compared to rechargeable options.

Pros of Custom-Molded Hearing Aids:

• Customized fit for ear anatomy
• Reduced occlusion effect with venting options
• Programmable for a wide range of hearing losses
• Discreet in most ears

Cons of Custom-Molded Hearing Aids:

• May cause a “plugged” sensation in individuals with normal low-frequency hearing
• Less suitable for individuals with profound hearing loss

Factors to Consider When Choosing the Smallest Hearing Aid

• Ear Anatomy: Even the smallest IIC hearing aids require sufficient space for internal electronics. Individuals with smaller ear canals may need to consider CIC models (Gelfand, 2016).
• Rechargeability: Rechargeable devices, such as the Signia Silk, offer convenience but require nightly charging. Non-rechargeable models, like those using size 10 batteries, require replacement every few days. The Phonak Lyric eliminates battery concerns by offering a subscription-based model, with devices replaced every 8-12 weeks during a clinician visit.
• Connectivity & Features: Many ultra-small hearing aids lack Bluetooth due to space limitations. While some CIC and ITC models offer app-controlled settings, Bluetooth streaming is generally available only in larger devices such as ITE and RIC models.
• Sound Quality: Smaller hearing aids may result in the occlusion effect, where internal sounds like chewing or speaking become amplified. This effect is most noticeable in individuals with normal or mild low-frequency hearing loss (Katz, 2015).
• Earwax Buildup: Users prone to excessive earwax may need to perform more frequent cleaning and replace filters, as wax buildup is a common cause of malfunction (Ferguson et al., 2017).

Who Are Smaller Hearing Aids Best Suited For?

Smaller hearing aids are ideal for:

• Active individuals: Perfect for those with mild to moderate hearing loss who lead dynamic lifestyles.
• Professionals: A discreet option for workers in fields such as finance and healthcare, especially for those who use stethoscopes.
• Individuals concerned with device visibility: For those who prefer a more discreet option without sacrificing performance.

However, smaller hearing aids may not be ideal for individuals with severe hearing loss or those who require advanced features, such as Bluetooth streaming.

Find The Perfect Hearing Aid For You

Choosing the right hearing aid depends on individual preferences, degree of hearing loss, and lifestyle. If discretion is a priority, the Phonak Lyric and Signia Silk provide excellent options, each with its unique set of benefits. Consulting with a hearing professional is essential to ensure the best fit based on ear anatomy, functionality, and specific hearing needs.

Call us today to learn more or book your appointment and find the perfect hearing solution for you!

References:

• Baguley, D. M., & McFerran, D. J. (2011). Current perspectives on tinnitus: A review of literature. Journal of Audiology, 50(1), 45-52.
• Ferguson, M. A., Kitterick, P. T., Chong, L. Y., Edmondson-Jones, M., Barker, F., & Hoare, D. J. (2017). Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 9(9), CD012023.
• Gelfand, S. A. (2016). Essentials of Audiology (4th ed.). Thieme Medical Publishers.
• Katz, J. (2015). Handbook of Clinical Audiology (7th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
• Hearing Industries Association (HIA). (2012). Hearing Aid Industries Statistical Reporting Program Summary 2012.
• Bentler, R. A., Wu, Y., Kettel, J., & Hurtig, R. (2008). Digital noise reduction: outcomes from laboratory and field studies. International Journal of Audiology, 47, 447–460.