Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30300158›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Achieved Gain and Subjective Outcomes for a Wide-Bandwidth Contact Hearing Aid Fitted Using CAM2.

Tanya L Arbogast, Brian C J Moore, Sunil Puria, Drew Dundas, Judith Brimacombe, Brent Edwards, Suzanne Carr Levy

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 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Audiometric Parameters for Assistive Hearing Technology for Adults and Children With Tympanic Membrane Perforation.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Hearing Aids: What Works Well and What Can Be Improved.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

7 authors.

Tanya L ArbogastEarlens Corporation, Menlo Park, California, USA.
Brian C J MooreDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Sunil PuriaDepartment of Otology & Laryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Drew DundasEarlens Corporation, Menlo Park, California, USA.
Judith BrimacombeEarlens Corporation, Menlo Park, California, USA.
Brent EdwardsEarlens Corporation, Menlo Park, California, USA.
Suzanne Carr LevyEarlens Corporation, Menlo Park, California, USA.

Funding

Wide-bandwidth open canal hearing aid for better multitalker speech understandingR44DC008499 · NIDCD · EARLENS CORPORATION · PI PURIA, SUNIL · 2008 to 2009
$1.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS R44 DC008499
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to test the ability to achieve, maintain, and subjectively benefit from extended high-frequency amplification in a real-world use scenario, with a device that restores audibility for frequencies up to 10 kHz.

designA total of 78 participants (149 ears) with mild to moderately-severe sensorineural hearing loss completed one of two studies conducted across eight clinical sites. Participants were fitted with a light-driven contact hearing aid (the Earlens system) that directly drives the tympanic membrane, allowing extended high-frequency output and amplification with minimal acoustic feedback. Cambridge Method for Loudness Equalization 2 - High Frequency (CAM2)-prescribed gains for experienced users were used for initial fitting, and adjustments were made when required according to participant preferences for loudness and comfort or when measures of functional gain (FG) indicated that more or less gain was needed. Participants wore the devices for an extended period. Prescribed versus adjusted output and gain, frequency-specific FG, and self-perceived benefit assessed with the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, and a custom questionnaire were documented. Self-perceived benefit results were compared with those for unaided listening and to ratings with participants' own acoustic hearing aids.

resultsThe prescribed low-level insertion gain from 6 to 10 kHz averaged 53 dB across all ears, with a range from 26 to 86 dB. After adjustment, the gain from 6 to 10 kHz decreased to an average of 45 dB with a range from 16 to 86 dB. Measured FG averaged 39 dB from 6 to 10 kHz with a range from 11 to 62 dB. Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit results revealed a significant improvement in communication relative to unaided listening, averaging 28 to 32 percentage points for the background noise, reverberation, and ease of communication subscales. Relative to participants' own hearing aids, the subscales ease of communication and aversiveness showed small but significant improvements for Earlens ranging from 6 to 7 percentage points. For the custom satisfaction questionnaire, most participants rated the Earlens system as better than their own hearing aids in most situations.

conclusionsParticipants used and reported subjective benefit from the Earlens system. Most participants preferred slightly less gain at 6 to 10 kHz than prescribed for experienced users by CAM2, preferring similar gains to those prescribed for inexperienced users, but gains over the extended high frequencies were high relative to those that are currently available with acoustic hearing aids.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometry, Pure-ToneAudiometry, SpeechFemaleHearing Loss, BilateralHearing Loss, SensorineuralHumansMaleMiddle AgedSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30300158
PMCPMC6453763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.