ArticleFrontiers in audiology and otology2023
Evaluating and optimizing hearing-aid self-fitting methods using population coverage.
Article in Frontiers in audiology and otology, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss can use over-the-counter hearing aids to treat their hearing loss at a fraction of traditional hearing care costs. These products incorporate self-fitting methods that allow end-users to configure their hearing aids without the help of an audiologist. A self-fitting method helps users configure the gain-frequency responses that control the amplification for each frequency band of the incoming sound. This paper considers how to guide the design of self-fitting methods by evaluating certain aspects of their design using computational tools before performing user studies. Most existing fitting methods provide various user interfaces to allow users to select a configuration from a predetermined set of presets. Accordingly, it is essential for the presets to meet the hearing needs of a large fraction of users who suffer from varying degrees of hearing loss and have unique hearing preferences. To this end, we propose a novel metric for evaluating the effectiveness of preset-based approaches by computing their population coverage. The population coverage estimates the fraction of users for which a self-fitting method can find a configuration they prefer. A unique aspect of our approach is a probabilistic model that captures how a user's unique preferences differ from other users with similar hearing loss. Next, we propose methods for building preset-based and slider-based self-fitting methods that maximize the population coverage. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed algorithms can effectively select a small number of presets that provide higher population coverage than clustering-based approaches. Moreover, we may use our algorithms to configure the number of increments of slider-based methods. We expect that the computational tools presented in this article will help reduce the cost of developing new self-fitting methods by allowing researchers to evaluate population coverage before performing user studies.
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.