ArticleAudiology research2026
Electroacoustic Verification Comparison of AirPods Pro 2nd and 3rd Generations and Traditional Hearing Aids.
Article in Audiology research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorization of AirPods Pro as over-the-counter hearing aids (HAs) has increased interest in consumer devices as potential alternatives to traditional amplification; however, their electroacoustic performance relative to clinically fitted HAs remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the electroacoustic characteristics and real-ear measures of AirPods Pro 2nd generation (APP2), AirPods Pro 3rd generation (APP3), and a traditional receiver-in-the-canal HA across mild flat, mild-to-moderate sloping, and moderate flat hearing loss configurations.
methodsOutcome measures included 2cc coupler output curves, saturation sound pressure level for a 90 dB input (SSPL90), real-ear speech mapping, maximum power output (MPO), and real-ear-to-coupler differences.
resultsCoupler-based electroacoustic measures showed that APP2 and APP3 produced output comparable to the traditional HA (within 7 dB). SSPL90 outputs were similar for APP2 and APP3, whereas the HA demonstrated profile-dependent increases. In contrast, real-ear measurements demonstrated that both APP2 and APP3 consistently produced less output relative to the HA that was fitted to NAL-NL2 targets, with the largest deviations observed for moderate hearing loss and at higher frequencies (up to 14 dB). Across all configurations, MPO was consistently highest for the HA, with both AirPods devices exhibiting reduced maximum output, especially in speech-critical frequency regions. Real-ear-to-coupler difference findings indicated reduced acoustic coupling for APP3 relative to APP2 and the HA, contributing to reduced in-ear amplification despite comparable coupler outputs.
conclusionsWhile AirPods Pro may offer benefit for mild hearing loss or moderate high-frequency hearing loss, they do not provide output comparable to prescriptively fitted HAs. These findings underscore the continued importance of clinical verification and prescription-based fitting of hearing assistive technology for achieving appropriate audibility across hearing loss configurations.
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.