Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32317951›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2020

Hearing Aids Do Not Alter Cortical Entrainment to Speech at Audible Levels in Mild-to-Moderately Hearing-Impaired Subjects.

Frederique J Vanheusden, Mikolaj Kegler, Katie Ireland, Constantina Georga, David M Simpson, Tobias Reichenbach, Steven L Bell

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03279367 (Objective Response Detection to Natural Speech Stimuli for Optimisation of Hearing Aid Fitting Evaluation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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.

NCT03279367 completednot on this map

Objective Response Detection to Natural Speech Stimuli for Optimisation of Hearing Aid Fitting Evaluation

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of SouthamptonRan2017 to 2018Enrolled20ConditionsHearing Loss, Hearing AbnormalityArmsObjective speech response detection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Frederique J VanheusdenDepartment of Engineering, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Mikolaj KeglerDepartment of Bioengineering and Centre for Neurotechnology, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, United Kingdom.
Katie IrelandAudiology Department, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, United Kingdom.
Constantina GeorgaAudiology Department, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, United Kingdom.
David M SimpsonInstitute of Sound and Vibration Research, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Tobias ReichenbachDepartment of Bioengineering and Centre for Neurotechnology, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, United Kingdom.
Steven L BellInstitute of Sound and Vibration Research, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Imperial College London · GBRoyal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBNottingham Trent University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCortical entrainment to speech correlates with speech intelligibility and attention to a speech stream in noisy environments. However, there is a lack of data on whether cortical entrainment can help in evaluating hearing aid fittings for subjects with mild to moderate hearing loss. One particular problem that may arise is that hearing aids may alter the speech stimulus during (pre-)processing steps, which might alter cortical entrainment to the speech. Here, the effect of hearing aid processing on cortical entrainment to running speech in hearing impaired subjects was investigated. METHODOLOGY: Seventeen native English-speaking subjects with mild-to-moderate hearing loss participated in the study. Hearing function and hearing aid fitting were evaluated using standard clinical procedures. Participants then listened to a 25-min audiobook under aided and unaided conditions at 70 dBA sound pressure level (SPL) in quiet conditions. EEG data were collected using a 32-channel system. Cortical entrainment to speech was evaluated using decoders reconstructing the speech envelope from the EEG data. Null decoders, obtained from EEG and the time-reversed speech envelope, were used to assess the chance level reconstructions. Entrainment in the delta- (1-4 Hz) and theta- (4-8 Hz) band, as well as wideband (1-20 Hz) EEG data was investigated.

resultsSignificant cortical responses could be detected for all but one subject in all three frequency bands under both aided and unaided conditions. However, no significant differences could be found between the two conditions in the number of responses detected, nor in the strength of cortical entrainment. The results show that the relatively small change in speech input provided by the hearing aid was not sufficient to elicit a detectable change in cortical entrainment.

conclusionFor subjects with mild to moderate hearing loss, cortical entrainment to speech in quiet at an audible level is not affected by hearing aids. These results clear the pathway for exploring the potential to use cortical entrainment to running speech for evaluating hearing aid fitting at lower speech intensities (which could be inaudible when unaided), or using speech in noise conditions.

Indexed as

cortical entrainmentelectroencephalographyhearing aid evaluationhearing impairmentspeech detection

Identifiers

PMID32317951
PMCPMC7147120
OpenAlexW3014764012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.