The value of headphone accommodations in Apple Airpods Pro for managing speech-in-noise hearing difficulties of individuals with normal audiograms

Hearing help-seeking, hearing device uptake and hearing health outcomes in individuals with subclinical hearing loss: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to examine the current literature on help-seeking, hearing device uptake, and hearing health outcomes in individuals with subclinical hearing loss.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

STUDY SAMPLE

Searches of three databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Scopus) yielded nine studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included studies was determined using the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. The studies' level of evidence was determined according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

All included studies involved adult participants. Three studies examined help-seeking. Self-reported difficulty, poor speech-in-noise performance, and emotional responses to the hearing difficulty were identified as factors influencing help-seeking. Six studies examined the use of hearing devices as an intervention, including hearing aids (n = 4), hearables (n = 1), and FM systems (n = 1). Using hearing devices improved self-perceived hearing difficulty, speech-in-noise understanding, and motivation to address hearing difficulties. No studies focused on hearing device uptake. The quality assessment indicated limited methodological rigour across the studies, with varying levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the use of hearing devices as an intervention for individuals with subclinical hearing loss. However, more research is essential, particularly focusing on help-seeking, diagnosis, treatment, and long-term outcomes using well-controlled study designs.

Externalization of Speech When Listening With Hearing Aids

Subjective reports indicate that hearing aids can disrupt sound externalization and/or reduce the perceived distance of sounds. Here we conducted an experiment to explore this phenomenon and to quantify how frequently it occurs for different hearing-aid styles. Of particular interest were the effects of microphone position (behind the ear vs. in the ear) and dome type (closed vs. open). Participants were young adults with normal hearing or with bilateral hearing loss, who were fitted with hearing aids that allowed variations in the microphone position and the dome type. They were seated in a large sound-treated booth and presented with monosyllabic words from loudspeakers at a distance of 1.5 m. Their task was to rate the perceived externalization of each word using a rating scale that ranged from 10 (at the loudspeaker in front) to 0 (in the head) to -10 (behind the listener). On average, compared to unaided listening, hearing aids tended to reduce perceived distance and lead to more in-the-head responses. This was especially true for closed domes in combination with behind-the-ear microphones. The behavioral data along with acoustical recordings made in the ear canals of a manikin suggest that increased low-frequency ear-canal levels (with closed domes) and ambiguous spatial cues (with behind-the-ear microphones) may both contribute to breakdowns of externalization.

Hearing Aids Reduce Self-Perceived Difficulties in Noise for Listeners With Normal Audiograms

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed hearing aid benefits for people with a normal audiogram but hearing-in-noise problems in everyday listening situations.

DESIGN

Exploratory double-blinded case-control study whereby participants completed retrospective questionnaires, ecological momentary assessments, speech-in-noise testing, and mental effort testing with and without hearing aids. Twenty-seven adults reporting speech-in-noise problems but normal air conduction pure-tone audiometry took part in the study. They were randomly separated into an experimental group that trialed mild-gain hearing aids with advanced directional processing and a control group fitted with hearing aids with no gain or directionality.

RESULTS

Self-reports showed mild-gain hearing aids reduce hearing-in-noise difficulties and provide a better hearing experience (i.e., improved understanding, participation, and mood). Despite the self-reported benefits, the laboratory tests did not reveal a benefit from the mild-gain hearing aids, with no group differences on speech-in-noise tests or mental effort measures. Further, participants found the elevated cost of hearing aids to be a barrier for their adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing aids benefit the listening experience in some listening situations for people with normal audiogram who report hearing difficulties in noise. Decreasing the price of hearing aids may lead to greater accessibility to those seeking remediation for their communication needs.