Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29554034›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Using Objective Metrics to Measure Hearing Aid Performance.

James M Kates, Kathryn H Arehart, Melinda C Anderson, Ramesh Kumar Muralimanohar, Lewis O Harvey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Type of Noise Influences Quality Ratings for Noisy Speech in Hearing Aid Users.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2020
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

James M KatesUniversity of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Kathryn H ArehartUniversity of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Melinda C AndersonUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Ramesh Kumar MuralimanoharUniversity of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Lewis O HarveyUniversity of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
University of Colorado Boulder · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

Characterizing Variability in Hearing Aid Outcomes Among Older AdultsR01DC012289 · NIDCD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI SOUZA, PAMELA E. · 2012 to 2021
$3.7M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012289
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe performance of hearing aids is generally characterized by a small set of standardized measurements. The primary goals of these procedures are to measure basic aspects of the hearing aid performance and to ascertain that the device is operating properly. A more general need exists for objective metrics that can predict hearing aid outcomes. Such metrics must consider the interaction of all the signal processing operating in the hearing aid and must do so while also accounting for the hearing loss for which the hearing aid has been prescribed. This article represents a first step in determining the clinical applicability of the hearing aid speech perception index (HASPI) intelligibility and hearing aid speech quality index (HASQI) speech quality metrics. The goals of this article are to demonstrate the feasibility of applying these metrics to commercial hearing aids and to illustrate the anticipated range of measured values and identify implementation concerns that may not be present for conventional measurements.

designThis article uses the HASPI intelligibility and HASQI speech quality metrics to measure the performance of commercial hearing aids. These metrics measure several aspects of the processed signal, including envelope fidelity, modifications of the temporal fine structure, and changes in the long-term frequency response, all in the context of an auditory model that reproduces the salient aspects of the peripheral hearing loss. The metrics are used to measure the performance of basic and premium hearing aids from three different manufacturers. Test conditions include the environmental factors of signal to noise ratio and presentation level, and the fitting configurations were varied to provide different degrees of processing from linear to aggressive nonlinear processing for two different audiograms.

resultsThe results show that the metrics are capable of measuring statistically significant differences across devices and processing settings. HASPI and HASQI measure both audibility and nonlinear distortion in the devices, and conditions are identified where predicted intelligibility is high but predicted speech quality is substantially reduced. The external signal properties of signal to noise ratio and presentation level are both statistically significant. Hearing loss is significant for HASPI but not for HASQI, and degree of processing is significant for both metrics. A quadratic model for manufacturer showed large effect sizes for HASPI and HASQI, but basic versus premium hearing aid model is not significant.

conclusionsThe results presented in this article represent a first step in applying the HASPI and HASQI metrics to commercial hearing aids. Modern hearing aids often use several different processing strategies operating simultaneously. The proposed metrics provide a way to predict the total effect of this processing, including algorithm interactions that may be missed by conventional measurement procedures. The measurements in this article show significant differences between manufacturers, processing settings, and adjustment for different hearing losses. No significant differences were found between basic and premium hearing aid models. Further research will be needed to determine the clinical relevance of these measurements and to provide target values appropriate for successful fittings.

Indexed as

Hearing TestsSpeech IntelligibilityAnalysis of VarianceAuditory PerceptionEquipment DesignFeasibility StudiesHearing AidsHumansLinear ModelsReference StandardsSignal-To-Noise Ratio

Identifiers

PMID29554034
PMCPMC6139280
OpenAlexW2793348675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.