ArticleNoise & health
Evaluating Telugu Speech Perception Measures for Hearing-Aid Benefit: Rationale for Developing Telugu Speech-in-Noise Tests.
Article in Noise & health. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe examined how Telugu conventional and high-frequency word lists captured aided speech-perception benefit under conventional amplification and nonlinear frequency compression in older adults with high-frequency hearing loss.
methodsThirteen elderly patients with acquired bilateral symmetrical sloping HFHL with postlingual onset served as participants. Speech perception was indexed through SIS (%) obtained with CWLs and HFWLs under quiet listening and +5 dB SNR conditions.
resultsThe patients obtained comparable SIS (%) ( P > 0.05) for CWLs in the conventional and NLFC strategies. However, they received significantly lower SIS (%) ( P < 0.05) in the conventional strategy for HFWLs than for CWLs. Likewise, they obtained comparable SIS (%) ( P > 0.05) for CWLs and HFWLs in the NLFC strategy. However, they received significantly greater SIS (%) ( P < 0.05) with the NLFC compared to the conventional strategy. Across hearing-aid strategies and word-list types, noise consistently reduced SIS (%) relative to quiet listening.
conclusionsThe CWLs overestimated patients' speech perception abilities and their performance with the conventional strategy. Conversely, the HFWLs identified genuine speech perception challenges, in addition to recognizing some of the benefits of the NLFC strategy. However, tests explicitly designed to evaluate speech-in-noise perception abilities, along with cognitive function assessments, need to be employed to provide evidence-based hearing validation.
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.