Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31599206›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

FreeHear: A New Sound-Field Speech-in-Babble Hearing Assessment Tool.

David R Moore, Helen Whiston, Melanie Lough, Antonia Marsden, Harvey Dillon, Kevin J Munro, Michael A Stone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Establishing New Pediatric Thresholds for Digits-In-Noise Testing.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Feasibility and Repeatability of an Abbreviated Auditory Perceptual and Cognitive Test Battery.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025
    Article
  4. Auditory Deprivation during Development Alters Efferent Neural Feedback and Perception.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

David R MooreManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1567-1945
Helen WhistonManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.
Melanie LoughManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.
Antonia MarsdenManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.
Harvey DillonManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.
Kevin J MunroManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.
Michael A StoneManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2252-9258

Funding

Idiopathic auditory dysfunction in children: nature and mechanismsR01DC014078 · NIDCD · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI MOORE, DAVID · 2015 to 2019
$3.0M
Smartphone based detection and intervention for hearing loss in low and middle income countriesR21DC016241 · NIDCD · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI MOORE, DAVID, SWANEPOEL, DEWET · 2017 to 2018
$344k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014078NIDCD NIH HHS R21 DC016241
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pure-tone threshold audiometry is currently the standard test of hearing. However, in everyday life, we are more concerned with listening to speech of moderate loudness and, specifically, listening to a particular talker against a background of other talkers. FreeHear delivers strings of three spoken digits (0-9, not 7) against a background babble via three loudspeakers placed in front and to either side of a listener. FreeHear is designed as a rapid, quantitative initial assessment of hearing using an adaptive algorithm. It is designed especially for children and for testing listeners who are using hearing devices. In this first report on FreeHear, we present developmental considerations and protocols and results of testing 100 children (4-13 years old) and 23 adults (18-30 years old). Two of the six 4 year olds and 91% of all older children completed full testing. Speech reception threshold (SRT) for digits and noise colocated at 0° or separated by 90° both improved linearly across 4 to 12 years old by 6 to 7 dB, with a further 2 dB improvement for the adults. These data suggested full maturation at approximately 15 years old SRTs at 90° digits/noise separation were better by approximately 6 dB than SRTs colocated at 0°. This spatial release from masking did not change significantly across age. Test-retest reliability was similar for children and adults (standard deviation of 2.05-2.91 dB SRT), with a mean practice improvement of 0.04-0.98 dB. FreeHear shows promise as a clinical test for both children and adults. Further trials in people with hearing impairment are ongoing.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAudiometry, Pure-ToneAuditory PerceptionChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHearingHearing LossHearing TestsHumansMaleNoiseReproducibility of ResultsSpeech PerceptionYoung Adultchildrendigits in noisehearing lossspatial release from maskingspeech reception thresholdyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID31599206
PMCPMC6787881

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.