Trial reportJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2017
Listener Performance with a Novel Hearing Aid Frequency Lowering Technique.
Trial report in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a Frequency-Lowering Algorithm for Adults With High-Frequency Hearing Loss.Trends in hearingTrial
- Effects of Frequency-Composition Algorithm and Phoneme-Based Auditory Training in Older Hearing Aid Users.Journal of audiology & otology · 2024Article
- Auditory Brainstem Responses at 6 and 8 kHz in Infants With Normal Hearing.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- Influence of aided audibility on speech recognition performance with frequency composition for children and adults.International journal of audiology · 2021Article
- Do high-frequency air-bone gaps persist after ossiculoplasty?Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020Article
- The Use of Frequency Lowering Technology in the Treatment of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss: A Review of the Literature and Candidacy Considerations for Clinical Application.Seminars in hearing · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSloping hearing loss imposes limits on audibility for high-frequency sounds in many hearing aid users. Signal processing algorithms that shift high-frequency sounds to lower frequencies have been introduced in hearing aids to address this challenge by improving audibility of high-frequency sounds. PURPOSE: This study examined speech perception performance, listening effort, and subjective sound quality ratings with conventional hearing aid processing and a new frequency-lowering signal processing strategy called frequency composition (FC) in adults and children. RESEARCH
designParticipants wore the study hearing aids in two signal processing conditions (conventional processing versus FC) at an initial laboratory visit and subsequently at home during two approximately six-week long trials, with the order of conditions counterbalanced across individuals in a double-blind paradigm. STUDY SAMPLE: Children (N = 12, 7 females, mean age in years = 12.0, SD = 3.0) and adults (N = 12, 6 females, mean age in years = 56.2, SD = 17.6) with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who were full-time hearing aid users. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES: Individual performance with each type of processing was assessed using speech perception tasks, a measure of listening effort, and subjective sound quality surveys at an initial visit. At the conclusion of each subsequent at-home trial, participants were retested in the laboratory. Linear mixed effects analyses were completed for each outcome measure with signal processing condition, age group, visit (prehome versus posthome trial), and measures of aided audibility as predictors.
resultsOverall, there were few significant differences in speech perception, listening effort, or subjective sound quality between FC and conventional processing, effects of listener age, or longitudinal changes in performance. Listeners preferred FC to conventional processing on one of six subjective sound quality metrics. Better speech perception performance was consistently related to higher aided audibility.
conclusionsThese results indicate that when high-frequency speech sounds are made audible with conventional processing, speech recognition ability and listening effort are similar between conventional processing and FC. Despite the lack of benefit to speech perception, some listeners still preferred FC, suggesting that qualitative measures should be considered when evaluating candidacy for this signal processing strategy.
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.