ArticleTrends in hearing
Noise Management Preferences During Long-Term Hearing Aid Usage and Their Relation to Audiologic Factors.
Article in Trends in hearing. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preferences for advanced hearing aid (HA) noise management features, such as directionality and noise reduction (DIR + NR), differ significantly among users. Due to the lack of standardized clinical guidelines for fine-tuning these features, audiologists often rely on individual user preferences. However, this approach doesn't always ensure optimal hearing outcomes. The goal of this study was to examine how users respond to these advanced features in everyday acoustic environments, with two main goals: to assess how sensitive users are to changes in DIR + NR settings compared to subtle gain adjustments, and to identify the factors influencing DIR + NR preferences in various situations. A total of 123 individuals using bilateral HAs participated in the study, conducted at two locations in Germany and Japan. Over six testing periods (half a year), participants were provided with two listening programs that differed either in the strength of their DIR + NR settings or in gain levels for high-frequency and soft sounds. Participants documented their preferences via self-initiated questionnaires, reporting experiences with the different settings in real-life listening scenarios. Most participants preferred modest adaptive DIR + NR settings and participants generally expressed higher preference strength for small gain changes than for variations in DIR + NR. Preferences could not be reliably predicted from audiologic or environmental factors, apart from a minor influence of subjective noisiness. These findings suggest that clinicians can guide the initial fitting of DIR + NR settings to optimize speech-in-noise performance, as adaptive DIR + NR configurations are broadly acceptable. User preferences remain important, particularly during gain fine-tuning, as small adjustments can be noticeable.
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.