Trial reportEar and hearing
Efficacy and Effectiveness of Advanced Hearing Aid Directional and Noise Reduction Technologies for Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.
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 48 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
48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Rapid Brain Adaptation to Hearing Amplification: A Randomized Crossover Trial of Personal Sound Amplification Products.Trends in hearingTrial
- Focusing on Positive Listening Experiences Improves Speech Intelligibility in Experienced Hearing Aid Users.Trends in hearingTrial
- Matching laboratory and real-world listening environments with ecological momentary assessment improves prediction of speech perception.JASA express letters · 2026Article
- Effect Sizes and Statistical Power in Hearing Aid Research.American journal of audiology · 2026Article
- A Moderated Mediation Model Linking Speech-in-Noise Exposure, Speech Perception in Noise Ability, Loneliness, and Depression.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Determinants of Speech Perception Outcomes After Hearing Aid Fitting in Conductive and Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Prospective Longitudinal Observational Study.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Characteristics of Older Adults Seeking Hearing Aids for the First Time and Initial Fitting Parameters in Mainland China.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Scene-Specific Self-Tuning of Hearing Aids Enhances Perceived Speech Quality.American journal of audiology · 2025Article
- Review
- Is There Incremental Benefit with Incremental Hearing Device Technology for Adults with Hearing Loss?Audiology research · 2025Article
- Implementing Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiological Research: Opportunities and Challenges.American journal of audiology · 2024Review
- Factors in the Effective Use of Hearing Aids among Subjects with Age-Related Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Effects of entropy in real-world noise on speech perception in listeners with normal hearing and hearing lossa).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- The Modern Hearing Care Landscape: Toward the Provision of Personalized, Dynamic, and Adaptive Care.Seminars in hearing · 2023Review
- The future of hearing aid technology : Can technology turn us into superheroes?Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2023Review
- Bayesian analysis of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) data collected in adults before and after hearing rehabilitation.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of the present study was to investigate the laboratory efficacy and real-world effectiveness of advanced directional microphones (DM) and digital noise reduction (NR) algorithms (i.e., premium DM/NR features) relative to basic-level DM/NR features of contemporary hearing aids (HAs). The study also examined the effect of premium HAs relative to basic HAs and the effect of DM/NR features relative to no features.
designFifty-four older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss completed a single-blinded crossover trial. Two HA models, one a less-expensive, basic-level device (basic HA) and the other a more-expensive, advanced-level device (premium HA), were used. The DM/NR features of the basic HAs (i.e., basic features) were adaptive DMs and gain-reduction NR with fewer channels. In contrast, the DM/NR features of the premium HAs (i.e., premium features) included adaptive DMs and gain-reduction NR with more channels, bilateral beamformers, speech-seeking DMs, pinna-simulation directivity, reverberation reduction, impulse NR, wind NR, and spatial NR. The trial consisted of four conditions, which were factorial combinations of HA model (premium versus basic) and DM/NR feature status (on versus off). To blind participants regarding the HA technology, no technology details were disclosed and minimal training on how to use the features was provided. In each condition, participants wore bilateral HAs for 5 weeks. Outcomes regarding speech understanding, listening effort, sound quality, localization, and HA satisfaction were measured using laboratory tests, retrospective self-reports (i.e., standardized questionnaires), and in-situ self-reports (i.e., self-reports completed in the real world in real time). A smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment system was used to collect in-situ self-reports.
resultsLaboratory efficacy data generally supported the benefit of premium DM/NR features relative to basic DM/NR, premium HAs relative to basic HAs, and DM/NR features relative to no DM/NR in improving speech understanding and localization performance. Laboratory data also indicated that DM/NR features could improve listening effort and sound quality compared with no features for both basic- and premium-level HAs. For real-world effectiveness, in-situ self-reports first indicated that noisy or very noisy situations did not occur very often in participants' daily lives (10.9% of the time). Although both retrospective and in-situ self-reports indicated that participants were more satisfied with HAs equipped with DM/NR features than without, there was no strong evidence to support the benefit of premium DM/NR features and premium HAs over basic DM/NR features and basic HAs, respectively.
conclusionsAlthough premium DM/NR features and premium HAs outperformed their basic-level counterparts in well-controlled laboratory test conditions, the benefits were not observed in the real world. In contrast, the effect of DM/NR features relative to no features was robust both in the laboratory and in the real world. Therefore, the present study suggests that although both premium and basic DM/NR technologies evaluated in the study have the potential to improve HA outcomes, older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss are unlikely to perceive the additional benefits provided by the premium DM/NR features in their daily lives. Limitations concerning the study's generalizability (e.g., participant's lifestyle) are discussed.
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.