Trial reportEar and hearing
Impact of Hearing Aid Technology on Outcomes in Daily Life II: Speech Understanding and Listening Effort.
Trial report in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Hearing Devices for Adults With Mild-to-Severe Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Pooled it
- Patient-Centered Hearing Intervention Leads to Positive Outcomes: The Association of Hearing Technology With Daily Hearing Aid Usage and Listening Goals in the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders Study.American journal of audiology · 2026Trial
- Hearing Aid Service Models, Technology, and Patient Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Trial
- The Effects of Service-Delivery Model and Purchase Price on Hearing-Aid Outcomes in Older Adults: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.American journal of audiology · 2017Trial
- Rapid Brain Adaptation to Hearing Amplification: A Randomized Crossover Trial of Personal Sound Amplification Products.Trends in hearingTrial
- Trial
- Effect Sizes and Statistical Power in Hearing Aid Research.American journal of audiology · 2026Article
- Audiologist Decision-Making: Hearing Aid Technology Levels and Auditory Ecology.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2026Article
- Time Matters: Possible Predictors of the Number of Appointments During the First Year After Hearing Aid Fitting.American journal of audiology · 2026Article
- Effects of Digital Noise Reduction Processing on Subjective and Objective (Pupillometry) Assays of Listening Effort.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Relationships Between Self-Report Hearing Scales, Listening Effort, and Speech Perception in Cocktail Party Noise in Hearing-Aided Patients.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Impact of hearing aid technology level at first-fit on self-reported outcomes in patients with presbycusis: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in aging · 2023Article
- Lexical Effects on the Perceived Clarity of Noise-Vocoded Speech in Younger and Older Listeners.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Preliminary Evidence on the Impact of Hearing Aid Use on Falls Risk in Individuals With Self-Reported Hearing Loss.American journal of audiology · 2021Article
- Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2020Observational
- Impact of hearing aid noise reduction algorithms on the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- An Application of the Medical Research Council's Guidelines for Evaluating Complex Interventions: A Usability Study Assessing Smartphone-Connected Listening Devices in Adults With Hearing Loss.American journal of audiology · 2018Article
- The Early Intervention of Hearing Loss in Adults.Seminars in hearing · 2018Article
- Benefits from, Satisfaction with, and Self-Efficacy for Advanced Digital Hearing Aids in Users with Mild Sensorineural Hearing Loss.Seminars in hearing · 2018Review
- Article
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
Abstract
objectivesModern hearing aid (HA) devices include a collection of acoustic signal-processing features designed to improve listening outcomes in a variety of daily auditory environments. Manufacturers market these features at successive levels of technological sophistication. The features included in costlier premium hearing devices are designed to result in further improvements to daily listening outcomes compared with the features included in basic hearing devices. However, independent research has not substantiated such improvements. This research was designed to explore differences in speech-understanding and listening-effort outcomes for older adults using premium-feature and basic-feature HAs in their daily lives.
designFor this participant-blinded, repeated, crossover trial 45 older adults (mean age 70.3 years) with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss wore each of four pairs of bilaterally fitted HAs for 1 month. HAs were premium- and basic-feature devices from two major brands. After each 1-month trial, participants' speech-understanding and listening-effort outcomes were evaluated in the laboratory and in daily life.
resultsThree types of speech-understanding and listening-effort data were collected: measures of laboratory performance, responses to standardized self-report questionnaires, and participant diary entries about daily communication. The only statistically significant superiority for the premium-feature HAs occurred for listening effort in the loud laboratory condition and was demonstrated for only one of the tested brands.
conclusionsThe predominant complaint of older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing impairment is difficulty understanding speech in various settings. The combined results of all the outcome measures used in this research suggest that, when fitted using scientifically based practices, both premium- and basic-feature HAs are capable of providing considerable, but essentially equivalent, improvements to speech understanding and listening effort in daily life for this population. For HA providers to make evidence-based recommendations to their clientele with hearing impairment it is essential that further independent research investigates the relative benefit/deficit of different levels of hearing technology across brands and manufacturers in these and other real-world listening domains.
Indexed as
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.