Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41688859›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2026

Hearing Aids: What Works Well and What Can Be Improved.

Brian C J Moore

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

1 author.

Brian C J MooreCambridge Hearing Group, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK. bcjm@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7071-0671

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council RG78536
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper evaluates the current performance of hearing aids, based on research findings and my experiences with hearing aids. The type of acoustic coupling to the ear is important. The fitting can be "closed" (sealing the ear canal), but this can lead to the occlusion effect; the user's own voice sounds too loud or too boomy. Alternatively, the fitting can be open (the eartip has a vent). This alleviates the occlusion effect, but it introduces comb-filtering (heard as perceptual coloration) and leads to little or no gain at low frequencies. Also, the highest frequency at which useful gain can be achieved is often about 5 kHz, which is lower than optimal. While acoustic feedback cancellation systems have improved markedly, they can still introduce artifacts and impair sound quality, especially for music. Hearing aids use multi-channel amplitude compression to compensate for the reduced dynamic range of hearing-impaired people, but they often fail to restore the audibility of soft sounds, especially at high frequencies, and the amount of compression is often limited (and less than indicated by the manufacturers' fitting software), leading to loudness discomfort (and sometimes reduced speech intelligibility) at high sound levels. Also, compression systems introduce cross-modulation, impairing sound quality. Most hearing aids incorporate directional processing and noise-reduction systems intended to improve the ability to understand speech in noisy situations. These systems can be effective with a closed fitting, but much of the benefit is lost with an open fitting because of leakage of background sounds through the vent.

Indexed as

Hearing AidsEquipment DesignHumansAmplitude compressionClosedness of fittingDirectional microphonesFeedback cancellationHearing aidsNoise reductionOcclusion effect

Identifiers

PMID41688859
PMCPMC13090441

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.