ArticleTrends in hearing
Can Dual Compression Offer Better Mandarin Speech Intelligibility and Sound Quality Than Fast-Acting Compression?
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 10 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics of Older Adults Seeking Hearing Aids for the First Time and Initial Fitting Parameters in Mainland China.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Evaluating Parenting Stress and Identifying Influential Factors in Caregivers of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Relationship between self-reported hearing and vision problems, cognitive decline, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction in older adults: a retrospective observational study.BMC public health · 2024Observational
- Perceived Sound Quality of Hearing Aids With Varying Placements of Microphone and Receiver.American journal of audiology · 2023Article
- A review of auditory processing and cognitive change during normal ageing, and the implications for setting hearing aids for older adults.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- Is Cantonese lexical tone information important for sentence recognition accuracy in quiet and in noise?PloS one · 2022Article
- Speech Perception in Noise Is Associated With Different Cognitive Abilities in Chinese-Speaking Older Adults With and Without Hearing Aids.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Article
- Effects of Source-Specific Dynamic Range Compression on Sound Quality for Individuals With Hearing Loss.Trends in hearingArticle
- Perception of Recorded Music With Hearing Aids: Compression Differentially Affects Musical Scene Analysis and Musical Sound Quality.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dual compression for Mandarin-speaking hearing aid users. Dual compression combines fast and slow compressors operating simultaneously across all frequency channels. The study participants were 31 hearing aid users with symmetrical moderate-to-severe hearing loss, with a mean age of 67 years. A new pair of 20-channel behind-the-ear hearing aids (i.e., Phonak Bolero B90-P) was used during the testing. The results revealed a significant improvement in speech reception thresholds in noise when switching from fast-acting compression to dual compression. The sound quality ratings revealed that most listeners preferred dual compression to fast-acting compression for listening effort, listening comfort, speech clarity, and overall sound quality at +4 dB signal-to-noise ratio. These results are consistent with predictions based on the theoretical understanding of dual and fast-acting compression. However, whether these results can be generalized to other languages or other dual compression systems should be verified by future studies.
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.