ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Improving speech intelligibility in noise and spatial perception: the critical role of hearing aid microphone position.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Hearing aid (HA) manufacturers have introduced behind-the-ear (BTE) models where the microphone is positioned in the ear canal, which could impact auditory performance by distorting the pinna's acoustic cues. This study aimed to compare two different BTE HAs with varying microphone positions: the receiver in the ear (RITE) and the transducer in the ear (TIE). Methods: The study involved 10 participants who had never used HAs before. They used both RITE and TIE HAs bilaterally for 3 weeks. Auditory performance was assessed through free field hearing assessments (hearing thresholds, speech recognition threshold, and speech discrimination score), the Turkish Matrix Sentence Test (TURMatrix), a sound localization test, and the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Living (SADL) questionnaire. Results: There was no significant difference between TIE and RITE in the free field hearing assessments. However, TIE outperformed RITE in non-adaptive TURMatrix scores in quiet, adaptive TURMatrix scores in noise, and sound localization accuracy at various angles. SADL sub-scores (Positive Effect, Service and Cost, and Personal Image) and overall satisfaction scores were significantly better for TIE. Discussion: The microphone position in HAs can influence auditory performance. This study demonstrated that TIE provided better speech intelligibility, localization accuracy, and user satisfaction compared to RITE.
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.