ArticleInternational journal of otolaryngology2012
Electroacoustic Comparison of Hearing Aid Output of Phonemes in Running Speech versus Isolation: Implications for Aided Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials Testing.
Article in International journal of otolaryngology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- The influence of phoneme contexts on adaptation in vowel-evoked envelope following responses.The European journal of neuroscience · 2022Article
- Hearing Aids Do Not Alter Cortical Entrainment to Speech at Audible Levels in Mild-to-Moderately Hearing-Impaired Subjects.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
- Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in (Un)aided Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Adults.Seminars in hearing · 2016Article
- Clinical Experience of Using Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in the Treatment of Infant Hearing Loss in Australia.Seminars in hearing · 2016Article
- How neuroscience relates to hearing aid amplification.International journal of otolaryngology · 2014Review
- The Acoustic Change Complex in Young Children with Hearing Loss: A Preliminary Study.Seminars in hearing · 2013Article
- Article
- A Set of Time-and-Frequency-Localized Short-Duration Speech-Like Stimuli for Assessing Hearing-Aid Performance via Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potentials.Trends in hearingArticle
- Predicting Hearing aid Benefit Using Speech-Evoked Envelope Following Responses in Children With Hearing Loss.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Functioning of nonlinear hearing aids varies with characteristics of input stimuli. In the past decade, aided speech evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) have been proposed for validation of hearing aid fittings. However, unlike in running speech, phonemes presented as stimuli during CAEP testing are preceded by silent intervals of over one second. Hence, the present study aimed to compare if hearing aids process phonemes similarly in running speech and in CAEP testing contexts. Method. A sample of ten hearing aids was used. Overall phoneme level and phoneme onset level of eight phonemes in both contexts were compared at three input levels representing conversational speech levels. Results. Differences of over 3 dB between the two contexts were noted in one-fourth of the observations measuring overall phoneme levels and in one-third of the observations measuring phoneme onset level. In a majority of these differences, output levels of phonemes were higher in the running speech context. These differences varied across hearing aids. Conclusion. Lower output levels in the isolation context may have implications for calibration and estimation of audibility based on CAEPs. The variability across hearing aids observed could make it challenging to predict differences on an individual basis.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.