ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Comparison of augmented reality glasses for the assistive communication support of hearing loss.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Augmented reality (AR) glasses can be utilized for various medical applications. Primarily, a visual overlay on the optic screen offers additional operational information. A transfer of acoustic information via speech-to-text transcript using AR glasses presents a new non-surgical option to support patients with different forms of hearing loss. This study aimed to evaluate different AR glasses for speech-to-text transcription. Methods: We compared four different AR glasses systems (Even Realities, G1; Meizu, MYVU IMIKI; XREAL, AIR, and Epson, Moverio 40) in terms of speech-to-text transcription, design, software, microphone and connection in this laboratory based study. Speech-capturing ability was tested using free-field numbers, monosyllables, and OLSA in quiet and in noise. Results: The AR systems achieved Freiburger monosyllabic speech recognition rates between 20 and 45% at 65 dB. OLSA in quiet results vary between 77 and 100%, with increases of +1.7 dB and +3.5 dB in noise. AR systems differ substantially in terms of design, software, microphone position, and connection. Proposed indication groups are given. Conclusion: AR glasses provide a potential supportive tool for patients with specific indications suffering from hearing loss. The systems show limitations in challenging hearing situations.
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.