Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33073727›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Investigating the Effects of Four Auditory Profiles on Speech Recognition, Overall Quality, and Noise Annoyance With Simulated Hearing-Aid Processing Strategies.

Mengfan Wu, Raul Sanchez-Lopez, Mouhamad El-Haj-Ali, Silje G Nielsen, Michal Fereczkowski, Torsten Dau, Sébastien Santurette, Tobias Neher

Open access · goldAbstract 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mengfan WuInstitute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8794-4490
Raul Sanchez-LopezHearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5239-2339
Mouhamad El-Haj-AliInstitute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3300-7789
Silje G NielsenHearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Michal FereczkowskiHearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Torsten DauHearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Sébastien SanturetteHearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Tobias NeherInstitute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1107-9274
Technical University of Denmark · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKOticon Medical (Denmark) · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective hearing aid (HA) rehabilitation requires personalization of the HA fitting parameters, but in current clinical practice only the gain prescription is typically individualized. To optimize the fitting process, advanced HA settings such as noise reduction and microphone directionality can also be tailored to individual hearing deficits. In two earlier studies, an auditory test battery and a data-driven approach that allow classifying hearing-impaired listeners into four auditory profiles were developed. Because these profiles were found to be characterized by markedly different hearing abilities, it was hypothesized that more tailored HA fittings would lead to better outcomes for such listeners. Here, we explored potential interactions between the four auditory profiles and HA outcome as assessed with three different measures (speech recognition, overall quality, and noise annoyance) and six HA processing strategies with various noise reduction, directionality, and compression settings. Using virtual acoustics, a realistic speech-in-noise environment was simulated. The stimuli were generated using a HA simulator and presented to 49 habitual HA users who had previously been profiled. The four auditory profiles differed clearly in terms of their mean aided speech reception thresholds, thereby implying different needs in terms of signal-to-noise ratio improvement. However, no clear interactions with the tested HA processing strategies were found. Overall, these findings suggest that the auditory profiles can capture some of the individual differences in HA processing needs and that further research is required to identify suitable HA solutions for them.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsHearing Loss, SensorineuralSpeech PerceptionAuditory ThresholdHearingHumansNoiseSpeechhearing aidsindividualizationperceptual evaluationsignal processingspeech perception

Identifiers

PMID33073727
PMCPMC7594216
OpenAlexW3093047811

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.