ArticleTrends in hearing
Objective Evaluation of a Deep Learning-Based Noise Reduction Algorithm for Hearing Aids Under Diverse Fitting and Listening Conditions.
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.
- Continuous vs. Interrupted Multi-Talker Babble Background Noise: Impact on Speech Perception in Bimodal Cochlear Implants.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Emerging Speech-in-Noise Tools for the Assessment of Hearing Loss: A Scoping Review.Audiology research · 2026Review
- Article
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
This study evaluated a deep-neural-network denoising system using model-based design, comparing it with adaptive filtering and beamforming across various noise types, SNRs, and hearing-aid fittings. A KEMAR manikin fitted with five audiograms was recorded in reverberant and non-reverberant rooms, yielding 1,152 recordings. Speech intelligibility was estimated using the HASPI from 1,152 KEMAR manikin recordings. Effects of processing strategy and acoustic factors were tested with model-based within-device design that account for repeated recordings per device/program and fitting. Linear mixed model results showed that the DNN with beamforming outperformed conventional processing, with strongest gains at 0 and +5 dB SNR, moderate benefits at -5 dB in low reverberation, and none in medium reverberation. Across SNRs and noise types, the DNN combined with beamforming yielded the highest predicted intelligibility, with benefits attenuated under moderate reverberation. Azimuth effects varied; because estimates were derived from a better-ear metric on manikin recordings. Additionally, this paper reports comparisons using metrics of sound quality, for an intrusive metric (HASQI) and the pMOS non-intrusive metric. Results indicated that model type interacted with processing and acoustic factors. HASQI and pMOS scores increased with SNR and were moderately correlated (r² ≈ 0.479), supporting the use of non-intrusive metrics for large-scale assessment. However, pMOS showed greater variability across hearing aid programs and environments, suggesting non-intrusive models capture processing effects differently than intrusive metrics. These findings highlight the promise and limits of non-intrusive evaluation while emphasizing the benefit of combining deep learning with beamforming to improve intelligibility and quality.
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.