ArticleTrends in hearing
Influence of Three Auditory Profiles on Aided Speech Perception in Different Noise Scenarios.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impaired noise adaptation contributes to speech intelligibility problems in people with hearing loss.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Auditory Tests for Characterizing Hearing Deficits in Listeners With Various Hearing Abilities: The BEAR Test Battery.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Revisiting Auditory Profiling: Can Cognitive Factors Improve the Prediction of Aided Speech-in-Noise Outcome?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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hearing aid (HA) users differ greatly in their speech-in-noise (SIN) outcomes. This could be because the degree to which current HA fittings can address individual listening needs differs across users and listening situations. In two earlier studies, an auditory test battery and a data-driven method were developed for classifying HA candidates into four distinct auditory profiles differing in audiometric hearing loss and suprathreshold hearing abilities. This study explored aided SIN outcome for three of these profiles in different noise scenarios. Thirty-one older habitual HA users and six young normal-hearing listeners participated. Two SIN tasks were administered: a speech recognition task and a "just follow conversation" task requiring the participants to self-adjust the target-speech level. Three noise conditions were tested: stationary speech-shaped noise, speech-shaped babble noise, and speech-shaped babble noise with competing dialogues. Each HA user was fitted with three HAs from different manufacturers using their recommended procedures. Real-ear measurements were performed to document the final gain settings. The results showed that HA users with mild hearing deficits performed better than HA users with pronounced hearing deficits on the speech recognition task but not the just follow conversation task. Moreover, participants with pronounced hearing deficits obtained different SIN outcomes with the tested HAs, which appeared to be related to differences in HA gain. Overall, these findings imply that current proprietary fitting strategies are limited in their ability to ensure good SIN outcomes, especially for users with pronounced hearing deficits, for whom the choice of device seems most consequential.
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.