Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30998547›Full record

Trial reportEar and hearing

Understanding Variability in Individual Response to Hearing Aid Signal Processing in Wearable Hearing Aids.

Pamela Souza, Kathryn Arehart, Tim Schoof, Melinda Anderson, Dorina Strori, Lauren Balmert

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Acoustic Scene-Aware Processing and Auditory Model-Based Compensation Strategies.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. The Type of Noise Influences Quality Ratings for Noisy Speech in Hearing Aid Users.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2020
    Article
  10. Open Speech Platform: Democratizing Hearing Aid Research.International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare : [proceedings]. International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Pamela SouzaDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders and Knowles Hearing Center, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Kathryn ArehartDepartment of Speech Language Hearing Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder.
Tim SchoofDepartment of Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London.
Melinda AndersonDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Colorado School of Medicine.
Dorina StroriDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Lauren BalmertDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Biostatistics Collaboration Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University.
Knowles (United States) · USNorthwestern University · USUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Colorado Boulder · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NUCATS)UL1TR001422 · NCATS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI D'AQUILA, RICHARD · 2015 to 2023
$56.8M
Characterizing Variability in Hearing Aid Outcomes Among Older AdultsR01DC012289 · NIDCD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI SOUZA, PAMELA E. · 2012 to 2021
$3.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001422NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012289
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrevious work has suggested that individual characteristics, including amount of hearing loss, age, and working memory ability, may affect response to hearing aid signal processing. The present study aims to extend work using metrics to quantify cumulative signal modifications under simulated conditions to real hearing aids worn in everyday listening environments. Specifically, the goal was to determine whether individual factors such as working memory, age, and degree of hearing loss play a role in explaining how listeners respond to signal modifications caused by signal processing in real hearing aids, worn in the listener's everyday environment, over a period of time.

designParticipants were older adults (age range 54-90 years) with symmetrical mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss. We contrasted two distinct hearing aid fittings: one designated as mild signal processing and one as strong signal processing. Forty-nine older adults were enrolled in the study and 35 participants had valid outcome data for both hearing aid fittings. The difference between the two settings related to the wide dynamic range compression and frequency compression features. Order of fittings was randomly assigned for each participant. Each fitting was worn in the listener's everyday environments for approximately 5 weeks before outcome measurements. The trial was double blind, with neither the participant nor the tester aware of the specific fitting at the time of the outcome testing. Baseline measures included a full audiometric evaluation as well as working memory and spectral and temporal resolution. The outcome was aided speech recognition in noise.

resultsThe two hearing aid fittings resulted in different amounts of signal modification, with significantly less modification for the mild signal processing fitting. The effect of signal processing on speech intelligibility depended on an individual's age, working memory capacity, and degree of hearing loss. Speech recognition with the strong signal processing decreased with increasing age. Working memory interacted with signal processing, with individuals with lower working memory demonstrating low speech intelligibility in noise with both processing conditions, and individuals with higher working memory demonstrating better speech intelligibility in noise with the mild signal processing fitting. Amount of hearing loss interacted with signal processing, but the effects were small. Individual spectral and temporal resolution did not contribute significantly to the variance in the speech intelligibility score.

conclusionsWhen the consequences of a specific set of hearing aid signal processing characteristics were quantified in terms of overall signal modification, there was a relationship between participant characteristics and recognition of speech at different levels of signal modification. Because the hearing aid fittings used were constrained to specific fitting parameters that represent the extremes of the signal modification that might occur in clinical fittings, future work should focus on similar relationships with more diverse types of signal processing parameters.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCross-Over StudiesData CompressionDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHearing Loss, SensorineuralHumansMaleMemory, Short-TermMiddle AgedNoiseSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID30998547
PMCPMC6786927
OpenAlexW2939431028

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.