ArticleTrends in hearing
Two Tests for Quantifying Aided Hearing at Low- and High-Input Levels.
Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Under- and overamplification of sound is a common problem in hearing aid fitting. This paper describes the implementation of two new variants of the hearing in noise test for quantifying aided hearing at the lower and upper ends of the range of everyday-life sound levels. We present results from experiments carried out with 30 adult hearing aid users to determine the respective test-retest reliabilities. Participants completed a test battery consisting of the standard Danish hearing in noise test, a variant targeting the lower threshold of audibility and a variant targeting the limit of loudness discomfort. The participants completed the test battery twice for reliability analysis. The results revealed a significant difference between test and retest for both the hearing in noise test and the two hearing in noise test variants. However, the effect sizes for the differences were all very small. A calculation of Pearson correlation coefficients showed that both the hearing in noise test and the two new hearing in noise test variants had significant and strong correlations between test and retest. The within-subject standard deviations were determined to be 0.8 dB for hearing in noise test, 0.9 dB for lower-end test, and 2.2 dB for upper-end test. The findings demonstrate that both the lower-end test and upper-end test have high test-retest reliabilities, and thus can provide consistent and reliable results.
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.