ArticleTrends in hearing
Comparison of Frequency Transposition and Frequency Compression for People With Extensive Dead Regions in the Cochlea.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04145661 (A Comparison of Conventional Hearing Aid Processing), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
A Comparison of Conventional Hearing Aid Processing (CP) and Non-linear Frequency Compression (NLFC) Processing in Adult Patients With and Without Cochlear Dead Regions Who Have a Moderate to Severe Sensorineural Hearing Loss.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Objective measure of binaural processing: Acoustic change complex in response to interaural phase differences.Hearing research · 2024Article
- The Influence of the Stimulus Level Used to Prescribe Nonlinear Frequency Compression on Speech Perception.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2024Article
- Influence of aided audibility on speech recognition performance with frequency composition for children and adults.International journal of audiology · 2021Article
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
The objective was to determine the effects of two frequency-lowering algorithms (frequency transposition, FT, and frequency compression, FC) on audibility, speech identification, and subjective benefit, for people with high-frequency hearing loss and extensive dead regions (DRs) in the cochlea. A single-blind randomized crossover design was used. FT and FC were compared with each other and with a control condition (denoted 'Control') without frequency lowering, using hearing aids that were otherwise identical. Data were collected after at least 6 weeks of experience with a condition. Outcome measures were audibility, scores for consonant identification, scores for word-final /s, z/ detection ( S test), sentence-in-noise intelligibility, and a questionnaire assessing self-perceived benefit (Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale). Ten adults with steeply sloping high-frequency hearing loss and extensive DRs were tested. FT and FC improved the audibility of some high-frequency sounds for 7 and 9 participants out of 10, respectively. At the group level, performance for FT and FC did not differ significantly from that for Control for any of the outcome measures. However, the pattern of consonant confusions varied across conditions. Bayesian analysis of the confusion matrices revealed a trend for FT to lead to more consistent error patterns than FC and Control. Thus, FT may have the potential to give greater benefit than Control or FC following extended experience or training.
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.