Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32552604›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Hearing Aid Self-Adjustment: Effects of Formal Speech-Perception Test and Noise.

Carol L Mackersie, Arthur Boothroyd, Harinath Garudadri

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effectiveness of a Self-Fitting Tool for User-Driven Fitting of Hearing Aids.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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
  7. 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

3 authors.

Carol L MackersieSchool of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University.ORCID 0000-0003-4789-5588
Arthur BoothroydSchool of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University.ORCID 0000-0002-3103-7290
Harinath GarudadriQualcomm Institute of Calit2, University of California, San Diego.

Funding

Quantifying Physical and Social Isolation, and Assessing Perceived LonelinessR01DC015436 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI GARUDADRI, HARINATH · 2016 to 2020
$2.4M
Self fitting of Amplification: Methodology and CandidacyR33DC015046 · NIDCD · SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI GARUDADRI, HARINATH, MACKERSIE, CAROL L · 2017 to 2020
$2.0M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015436NIDCD NIH HHS R33 DC015046
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While listening to recorded sentences with a sound-field level of 65 dB SPL, 24 adults with hearing-aid experience used the "Goldilocks" explore-and-select procedure to adjust level and spectrum of amplified speech to preference. All participants started adjustment from the same generic response. Amplification was provided by a custom-built Master Hearing Aid with online processing of microphone input. Primary goals were to assess the effects of including a formal speech-perception test between repeated self-adjustments and of adding multitalker babble (signal-to-noise ratio +6 dB) during self-adjustment. The speech test did not affect group-mean self-adjusted output, which was close to the National Acoustics Laboratories' prescription for Non-Linear hearing aids. Individuals, however, showed a wide range of deviations from this prescription. Extreme deviations at the first self-adjustment fell by a small but significant amount at the second. The multitalker babble had negligible effect on group-mean self-selected output but did have predictable effects on word recognition in sentences and on participants' opinion regarding the most important subjective criterion guiding self-adjustment. Phoneme recognition in monosyllabic words was better with the generic starting response than without amplification and improved further after self-adjustment. The findings continue to support the efficacy of hearing aid self-fitting, at least for level and spectrum. They do not support the need for inclusion of a formal speech-perception test, but they do support the value of completing more than one self-adjustment. Group-mean data did not indicate a need for threshold-based prescription as a starting point for self-adjustment.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsHearing Loss, SensorineuralSpeech PerceptionAdultHumansNoiseSpeechamplificationhearing aidshearing lossself-adjustmentself-fitting

Identifiers

PMID32552604
PMCPMC7307280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.