ArticleInternational journal of audiology2022
A comparison of speech intelligibility and subjective quality with hearing-aid processing in older adults with hearing loss.
Article in International journal of audiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scene-Specific Self-Tuning of Hearing Aids Enhances Perceived Speech Quality.American journal of audiology · 2025Article
- Binaural speech intelligibility for combinations of noise, reverberation, and hearing-aid signal processing.PloS one · 2025Article
- A Contemporary Review of Clinical Factors Involved in Speech-Perspectives from a Prosthodontist Point of View.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- 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
- An overview of the HASPI and HASQI metrics for predicting speech intelligibility and speech quality for normal hearing, hearing loss, and hearing aids.Hearing research · 2022Review
- Effects of Source-Specific Dynamic Range Compression on Sound Quality for Individuals With Hearing Loss.Trends in hearingArticle
- Modeling the Relationship Between Listener Factors and Envelope Fidelity: A Pooled Analysis Spanning a Decade.Ear and 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study characterised the relationship between speech intelligibility and quality in listeners with hearing loss for a range of hearing-aid processing settings and acoustic conditions.
designBinaural speech intelligibility scores and quality ratings were measured for sentences presented in babble noise and processed through a hearing-aid simulation. The intelligibility-quality relationship was investigated by (1) assessing the effects of experimental conditions on each task; (2) directly comparing intelligibility scores and quality ratings for each participant across the range of conditions; and (3) comparing the association between signal envelope fidelity (represented by a cepstral correlation metric) and intelligibility and quality. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants were 15 adults (7 females; age range 59-81 years) with mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss.
resultsIntelligibility and quality showed a positive association both with each other and with changes to signal fidelity introduced by the entire acoustic and signal-processing system including the additive noise and the hearing-aid output. As signal fidelity decreased, quality ratings changed at a slower rate than intelligibility scores. Individual psychometric functions were more variable for quality compared to intelligibility.
conclusionsVariability in the intelligibility-quality relationship reinforces the importance of measuring both intelligibility and quality in clinical hearing-aid fittings.
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.