Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41680974›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Do Adolescent Hearing Aid Users Prefer Digital Noise Reduction to Be Activated? Findings From the Laboratory and Home Environments.

Erin M Picou, Kjersten Branscome, Kayleigh Pletch, Lisa Standaert, Andrea H Dunn, Johanna Nelson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Erin M PicouDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Stäfa, Switzerland.
Kjersten BranscomeDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Stäfa, Switzerland.
Kayleigh PletchDepartment of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Stäfa, Switzerland.
Lisa StandaertSonova, AG, Stäfa, Switzerland.
Andrea H DunnSonova, AG, Stäfa, Switzerland.
Johanna NelsonSonova, AG, Stäfa, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of an advanced digital noise reduction algorithm on measures in the laboratory (double-blind paired comparison testing, unblinded slider setting, sentence recognition performance) and during a field trial (unblinded slider setting). A secondary purpose was to evaluate participants' ability and willingness to use a smartphone application for controlling the algorithm in the field.

designLaboratory procedures included the evaluation of subjective ratings of listening ease using a double-blinded, paired comparisons approach while listening to speech in background noise. Participants were trained to use a smartphone application for manually controlling the advanced digital noise reduction algorithm and they indicated their preferred setting using the smartphone application, also in the laboratory. In addition, they completed double-blinded, behavioral sentence recognition in noise testing with a variety of advanced noise reduction settings. Finally, participants wore the hearing aids at home during a field trial, with instructions to use the smartphone application during the trial in noisy situations and to report on their experiences using a bespoke questionnaire upon their return to the laboratory.

resultsDouble-blind, paired comparison testing revealed that most participants (80%) preferred to have advanced digital noise reduction active in the noisy, reverberant laboratory. These participants were also likely to demonstrate a preference for the advanced digital noise reduction to be active during the unblinded preference task. Advanced digital noise reduction did not affect sentence recognition in noise performance. During the field trial, participants could use the smartphone application to adjust the advanced noise reduction strength in noisy situations but did not choose to do so frequently. In addition, on average, participants did not activate the advanced digital noise reduction algorithm when in self-identified difficult listening situations during the field trial.

conclusionsThe results of the current study demonstrate robust subjective benefits of advanced digital noise activation in the laboratory, with no effects on speech intelligibility. In addition, participants were internally consistent in the laboratory; their self-adjusted settings were consistent with the program they preferred during the double-blind, paired comparisons testing. However, the findings with the smartphone application demonstrate that, in general, they did not activate the advanced digital noise reduction during their self-identified difficult listening situations in the field. This result could partially be explained by the limited reported use of the smartphone application during the field trial. Future study is warranted to reconcile the laboratory and field trial findings in this study. In the interim, a reasonable clinical approach with limited negative speech intelligibility consequences might be to activate advanced digital noise reduction by default and provide smartphone application access in case a patient discovers a preference for an alternative noise reduction strength.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsMobile ApplicationsNoisePatient PreferenceSmartphoneSpeech PerceptionAdolescentAlgorithmsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleChildrenField trialHearing aidNoise reductionPreferenceSpeech in noise

Identifiers

PMID41680974
PMCPMC13252974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.