ArticleTrends in hearing
Acoustically Transparent Hearing Aids Increase Physiological Markers of Listening Effort.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Listening Effort for Soft Speech in Quiet.Trends in hearingArticle
- Article
- Characterizing Perception of Impulse Sounds Through Subjective Ratings and Pupillometric Responses.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While hearing aids are beneficial in compensating for hearing loss and suppressing ambient noise, they may also introduce an unwanted processing burden to the listener's sensory and cognitive system. To investigate such adverse side effects, hearing aids may be set to a 'transparent mode', aiming to replicate natural hearing through the open ear as best as possible. Such transparent hearing aids have previously been demonstrated to exhibit a small but significant disadvantage in speech intelligibility, with less conclusive effects on self-rated listening effort. Here we aimed to reproduce these findings and expand them with neurophysiological measures of invested listening effort, including parietal alpha power and pupil size. Invested listening effort was measured across five task difficulties, ranging from nearly impossible to easy, with normal-hearing participants in both aided and unaided conditions. Results well reproduced a hearing aid disadvantage for speech intelligibility and subjective listening effort ratings. As to be expected, pupil size and parietal alpha power followed an inverted u-shape, peaking at moderate task difficulties (around SRT50). However, the transparent hearing aid increased pupil size and parietal alpha power at medium task demand (between SRT20 and SRT80). These neurophysiological effects were larger than those observed in speech intelligibility and subjective listening effort, respectively. The results gain plausibility by yielding a substantial association of individual pupil size and individual parietal alpha power. In sum, our findings suggest that key neurophysiological measures of invested listening effort are sensitive to the individual additional burden on speech intelligibility that hearing aid processing can introduce.
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.