Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35862280›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

The Effects of Hearing-Aid Amplification and Noise on Conversational Dynamics Between Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Talkers.

Eline Borch Petersen, Ewen N MacDonald, A Josefine Munch Sørensen

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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Impact of hearing aid usage on the quality of life of the older adult in KwaZulu-Natal.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Eline Borch PetersenWS Audiology A/S, Lynge, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9258-5795
Ewen N MacDonaldHearing Systems Group, Dept. of Health Technology, 5205Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6973-2926
A Josefine Munch SørensenHearing Systems Group, Dept. of Health Technology, 5205Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8148-5692
Lyngsø Marine (Denmark) · DKTechnical University of Denmark · DKUniversity of Waterloo · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a long-standing tradition to assess hearing-aid benefits using lab-based speech intelligibility tests. Towards a more everyday-like scenario, the current study investigated the effects of hearing-aid amplification and noise on face-to-face communication between two conversational partners. Eleven pairs, consisting of a younger normal-hearing (NH) and an older hearing-impaired (HI) participant, solved spot-the-difference tasks while their conversations were recorded. In a two-block randomized design, the tasks were solved in quiet or noise, both with and without the HI participant receiving hearing-aid amplification with active occlusion cancellation. In the presence of 70 dB SPL babble noise, participants had fewer, slower, and less well-timed turn-starts, while speaking louder with longer inter-pausal units (IPUs, stretches of continuous speech surrounded by silence) and reducing their articulation rates. All these changes are indicative of increased communication effort. The timing of turn-starts by the HI participants exhibited more variability than that of their NH conversational partners. In the presence of background noise, the timing of turn-starts by the HI participants became even more variable, and their NH partners spoke louder. When the HI participants were provided with hearing-aid amplification, their timing of turn-starts became faster, they increased their articulation rate, and they produced shorter IPUs, all indicating reduced communication effort. In conclusion, measures of the conversational dynamics showed that background noise increased the communication effort, especially for the HI participants, and that providing hearing-aid amplification caused the HI participant to behave more like their NH conversational partner, especially in quiet situations.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsHearing LossHearing Loss, SensorineuralSpeech PerceptionHearingHumansSpeech Intelligibilityconversational dynamicshearing aidhearing impairmentturn-taking

Identifiers

PMID35862280
PMCPMC9310272
OpenAlexW4286375589

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.