ArticleTrends in hearing
Validation of a Self-Fitting Method for Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids.
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 NCT05782153 (Comparing Self-Fitting Strategies in the Lexie Powered by Bose Hearing Aids), which is not on this map. Cited by 40 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.
Comparing Self-Fitting Strategies in the Lexie Powered by Bose Hearing Aids: A Randomized Control Trial
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-Fit vs. Professional-Fit Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2026Trial
- Usability and Performance of Self-Fitting Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Self-Fitting Versus Professional-Fitting Hearing Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Audiology research · 2026Review
- Extremely High Fitting Range and Dangerous Levels Permitted by the Current FDA Guidelines for OTC Hearing Aids and the Need to Consider RECDs.Audiology research · 2026Article
- A novel approach to hearing amplification: audiometric outcomes from Nuance Audio over-the-counter hearing aid glasses.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2026Article
- Perceptions of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids: A Qualitative Study Informed by the Technology Acceptance Model.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2026Article
- Over-the-counter hearing aids and integrated health-monitoring sensors: a review of clinical evidence and implementation.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Retrocochlear Auditory Dysfunctions (RADs) and Their Treatment: A Narrative Review.Audiology research · 2025Review
- Scene-Specific Self-Tuning of Hearing Aids Enhances Perceived Speech Quality.American journal of audiology · 2025Article
- Usability of Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids in Older Adults.American journal of audiology · 2025Article
- Are Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction Rates Higher for Traditional or Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids?Seminars in hearing · 2025Review
- Gain Analysis of Self-Fitting Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids: A Comparative and Longitudinal Analysis.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Potential Roles of Audiologists Supporting Patients' OTC Hearing Aid Journey.Seminars in hearing · 2025Review
- Hearing Care Within Diabetes Care: Strategies for Direct Inclusion.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025Article
- A Review of Machine Learning Approaches for the Personalization of Amplification in Hearing Aids.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Customer Archetypes in Hearing Health Care.American journal of audiology · 2023Article
- Preserving the Role of the Audiologist in a Clinical Technology, Consumer Channel, Clinical Service Model of Hearing Healthcare.Seminars in hearing · 2023Review
- Remote Technologies to Enhance Service Delivery for Adults: Clinical Research Perspectives.Seminars in hearing · 2023Review
- Scoping Review for a Global Hearing Care Framework: Matching Theory with Practice.Seminars in hearing · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In common practice, hearing aids are fitted by a clinician who measures an audiogram and uses it to generate prescriptive gain and output targets. This report describes an alternative method where users select their own signal processing parameters using an interface consisting of two wheels that optimally map to simultaneous control of gain and compression in each frequency band. The real-world performance of this approach was evaluated via a take-home field trial. Participants with hearing loss were fitted using clinical best practices (audiogram, fit to target, real-ear verification, and subsequent fine tuning). Then, in their everyday lives over the course of a month, participants either selected their own parameters using this new interface (Self group; n = 38) or used the parameters selected by the clinician with limited control (Audiologist Best Practices Group; n = 37). On average, the gain selected by the Self group was within 1.8 dB overall and 5.6 dB per band of that selected by the audiologist. Participants in the Self group reported better sound quality than did those in the Audiologist Best Practices group. In blind sound quality comparisons conducted in the field, participants in the Self group slightly preferred the parameters they selected over those selected by the clinician. Finally, there were no differences between groups in terms of standard clinical measures of hearing aid benefit or speech perception in noise. Overall, the results indicate that it is possible for users to select effective amplification parameters by themselves using a simple interface that maps to key hearing aid signal processing parameters.
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.