ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Development and clinical application of a consonant confusion task to evaluate hearing aid benefit.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: This research sought to develop a low-cognitive-load speech-in-noise test based on consonant confusions with the potential for assessing hearing-aid benefit. Methods: Vowel-consonant-vowel (VCV) stimuli with added speech-shaped noise were presented as a closed-set consonant identification task. Initially, consonant-confusion matrices were used to select, from a larger set of consonants and vowel contexts, a set of ten consonants and associated signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) that were sensitive to hearing loss. The sensitivity of the qVCV test to hearing loss was validated by comparing predicted pure-tone average (PTA) hearing thresholds with their audiometric PTA. Clinical viability of the qVCV test was assessed by comparisons to the QuickSIN test. Hearing-aid benefit was assessed by comparing test scores in unaided and aided conditions. Results: The consonants most sensitive to hearing loss were /b d g t k v z s ʃ n/ in the vowel context /ɑ/. A cross-validated prediction of PTA had a mean-absolute error of 5.7 dB. The repeatability of qVCV at 50 trials was equivalent to the QuickSIN average of two lists. Hearing-aid benefit was quantified as a decibel reduction in hearing loss. Conclusions: qVCV and QuickSIN performed similarly when test times are equated. The advantages of qVCV include lower cognitive demand, fewer learning effects, and automated scoring. PTA predicted by qVCV which greatly exceeds audiometric PTA may indicate either cognitive deficits or cochlear neural degeneration. The qVCV quantification of hearing-aid benefit may have clinical value.
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.