ArticleTrends in hearing
Preferred Strength of Noise Reduction for Normally Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Listeners.
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 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.
- Scene-Specific Self-Tuning of Hearing Aids Enhances Perceived Speech Quality.American journal of audiology · 2025Article
- Noise Management Preferences During Long-Term Hearing Aid Usage and Their Relation to Audiologic Factors.Trends in hearingArticle
- Toward an Extended Classification of Noise-Distortion Preferences by Modeling Longitudinal Dynamics of Listening Choices.Trends in hearingArticle
- Do Adolescent Hearing Aid Users Prefer Digital Noise Reduction to Be Activated? Findings From the Laboratory and Home Environments.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preference for noise reduction (NR) strength differs between individuals. The purpose of this study was (1) to investigate whether hearing loss influences this preference, (2) to find the number of distinct settings required to classify participants in similar groups based on their preference for NR strength, and (3) to estimate the number of paired comparisons needed to predict to which preference group a participant belongs. A paired comparison paradigm was used in which participants listened to pairs of speech-in-noise stimuli processed by NR with 10 different strength settings. Participants indicated their preferred sound sample. The 30 participants were divided into three groups according to hearing status (normal hearing, mild hearing loss, and moderate hearing loss). The results showed that (1) participants with moderate hearing loss preferred stronger NR than participants with normal hearing; (2) cluster analysis based solely on the preference for NR strength showed that the data could be described well by dividing the participants into three preference clusters; (3) the appropriate cluster membership could be found with 15 paired comparisons. We conclude that on average, a higher hearing loss is related to a preference for stronger NR, at least for our NR algorithm and our participants. The results show that it might be possible to use a limited set of pre-set NR strengths that can be chosen clinically. For our NR one might use three settings: no NR, intermediate NR, and strong NR. Paired comparisons might be used to find the optimal one of the three settings.
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.