ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Investigating Real-World Benefits of High-Frequency Gain in Bone-Anchored Users with Ecological Momentary Assessment and Real-Time Data Logging.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiological Research: Opportunities and Challenges.American journal of audiology · 2024Review
- Bayesian analysis of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) data collected in adults before and after hearing rehabilitation.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- Real-World Hearing Aid Usage Patterns and Smartphone Connectivity.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Article
- Beyond the Moment: How EMA Reporting Periods Affect Sampled Situations and Sensitivity to Hearing Aid Differences.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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare listening ability (speech reception thresholds) and real-life listening experience in users with a percutaneous bone conduction device (BCD) with two listening programs differing only in high-frequency gain. In situ real-life experiences were recorded with ecological momentary assessment (EMA) techniques combined with real-time acoustical data logging and standard retrospective questionnaires.
methodsNineteen experienced BCD users participated in this study. They all used a Ponto 4 BCD from Oticon Medical during a 4-week trial period. Environmental data and device parameters (i.e., device usage and volume control) were logged in real-time on an iPhone via a custom iOS research app. At the end of the trial period, subjects filled in APHAB, SSQ, and preference questionnaires. Listening abilities with the two programs were evaluated with speech reception threshold tests.
resultsThe APHAB and SSQ questionnaires did not reveal any differences between the two listening programs. The EMAs revealed group-level effects, indicating that in speech and noisy listening environments, subjects preferred the default listening program, and found the program with additional high-frequency gain too loud. This finding was corroborated by the volume log-subjects avoided the higher volume control setting and reacted more to changes in environmental sound pressure levels when using the high-frequency gain program. Finally, day-to-day changes in EMAs revealed acclimatization effects in the listening experience for ratings of "sound quality" and "program suitability" of the BCD, but not for ratings of "loudness perception" and "speech understanding". The acclimatization effect did not differ among the listening programs.
conclusionAdding custom high-frequency amplification to the BCD target-gain prescription improves speech reception in laboratory tests under quiet conditions, but results in poorer real-life listening experiences due to loudness.
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.