ArticleTrends in hearing
Benefit of Amplification at Low Input Levels in Normal-Hearing Listeners.
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 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hearing devices such as hearables, personal sound amplification products, hearing aids, and active hearing protectors providing amplification in some settings are increasingly used by individuals with normal hearing. However, the benefits of providing amplification in this population remain unclear. This study investigated the effects of amplification on hearing thresholds, speech intelligibility in quiet, and experienced listening effort in normal-hearing listeners. Forty-four young adults with clinically normal hearing participated in two experiments comparing three conditions: open ear, aided with 0 dB insertion gain to approximate acoustic transparency, and aided with 15 dB flat insertion gain. Amplification was provided using a research hearing aid fitted with closed foam earplugs. Speech intelligibility was assessed with the Oldenburg Sentence Test, and experienced listening effort was measured using Adaptive CAtegorical Listening Effort Scaling (ACALES). Listening through the nominally transparent device introduced consistent disadvantages, including elevated hearing thresholds, reduced speech intelligibility, and increased listening effort. Providing 15 dB of amplification partially compensated hearing threshold elevation, fully restored speech intelligibility and reduced experienced listening effort beyond the unaided condition. Benefits of amplification at low input levels were primarily limited by the equivalent input noise of the hearing-aid microphones. These findings suggest that amplification can provide meaningful benefits for normal-hearing listeners at low speech levels, particularly when listening effort is considered alongside speech intelligibility. Future studies should examine these effects under more ecologically valid listening conditions, and potential benefits of increased amplification in hearing-impaired listeners.
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.