Discrimination of Gain Increments in Speech-Shaped Noises

Effectiveness of an Over-the-Counter Self-fitting Hearing Aid Compared With an Audiologist-Fitted Hearing Aid: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent condition, with numerous debilitating consequences when left untreated. However, less than 20% of US adults with hearing loss use hearing aids. Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids became available in October 2022 to improve access and affordability. However, clinical effectiveness studies of available OTC hearing aids using the existing devices in the market are limited.

Objective

To compare the clinical effectiveness of a self-fitting OTC hearing aid with remote support and a hearing aid fitted using audiologist-fitted best practices.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical effectiveness trial was conducted between April 14 and August 29, 2022. Sixty-eight adults with self-perceived mild to moderate hearing loss were recruited and randomly assigned to either the self-fitting or the audiologist-fitted group. Following bilateral hearing aid fitting, participants first completed a 2-week, take-home field trial without any support. Access to fine-tuning for both groups was only available after the 2-week trial. Support and adjustment were provided remotely for the self-fitting group per request and by the audiologist for the audiologist-fitted group. Participants were then reassessed after an additional 4-week take-home trial.

Interventions

A commercially available self-fitting OTC hearing aid was provided to participants in the self-fitting group who were expected to set up the hearing aids using the commercially supplied instructional material and accompanying smartphone application. In the audiologist-fitted group, audiologists fitted the same hearing aid according to the National Acoustics Laboratories nonlinear version 2 algorithm for prescriptive gain target using real-ear verification with hearing aid use instruction.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measure was self-reported hearing aid benefit, measured using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Secondary measures included the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and speech recognition in noise measured using an abbreviated speech-in-noise test and a digits-in-noise test. All measures were completed at baseline and at 2 intervals following hearing aid fitting (2 and 6 weeks).

Results

Sixty-four participants were included in the analytic sample (33 men [51.6%]; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [14.1] years), with equal numbers of participants (n = 32) randomized into each group. The groups did not differ significantly in age (effect size r = -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to 0.2]) or 4-frequency pure-tone average (effect size r = 0.2 [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4]). After the 2-week field trial, the self-fitting group had an initial advantage compared with the audiologist-fitted group on the self-reported APHAB (Cohen d = -0.5 [95% CI, -1.0 to 0]) and IOI-HA (effect size r = 0.3 [95% CI, 0.0-0.5]) but not speech recognition in noise. At the end of the 6-week trial, no meaningful differences were evident between the groups on any outcome measures.

Conclusion and relevance

In this randomized clinical effectiveness trial, self-fitting OTC hearing aids with remote support yielded outcomes at 6 weeks post fitting comparable to those of hearing aids fitted using audiologist best practices. These findings suggest that self-fitting OTC hearing aids may provide an effective intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05337748.

Does Probe-Tube Verification of Real-Ear Hearing Aid Amplification Characteristics Improve Outcomes in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review, the first on this topic, aimed to investigate if probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improves outcomes in adults. The review was preregistered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. After assessing more than 1,420 records from seven databases, six experimental studies (published between 2012 and 2019) met the inclusion criteria; five were included in the meta-analyses. The primary outcome of interest (hearing-specific, health-related quality of life) was not reported in any study. There were moderate and statistically significant positive effects of probe-tube real-ear measurement (REM), compared with the manufacturer’s initial fit, on speech intelligibility in quiet settings (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.59) and user’s final preference (proportion difference: 52.2%). There were small but statistically significant positive effects of REM on self-reported listening abilities (SMD: 0.22) and speech intelligibility in noise (SMD: 0.15). The quality of evidence for these outcomes ranged from high to very low. The findings show that REMs improve outcomes statistically, but this is based on a small number of studies and a limited number of participants. It is currently unclear if the benefits are of material importance because minimum clinically important differences have not been established for most of the outcomes. Ultimately, there needs to be a cost-effectiveness analysis to show that statistically significant benefits, which exceed the minimum clinically important difference, are worth the cost involved.

Perceived Sound Quality Dimensions Influencing Frequency-Gain Shaping Preferences for Hearing Aid-Amplified Speech and Music

Hearing aids are typically fitted using speech-based prescriptive formulae to make speech more intelligible. Individual preferences may vary from these prescriptions and may also vary with signal type. It is important to consider what motivates listener preferences and how those preferences can inform hearing aid processing so that assistive listening devices can best be tailored for hearing aid users. Therefore, this study explored preferred frequency-gain shaping relative to prescribed gain for speech and music samples. Preferred gain was determined for 22 listeners with mild sloping to moderately severe hearing loss relative to individually prescribed amplification while listening to samples of male speech, female speech, pop music, and classical music across low-, mid-, and high-frequency bands. Samples were amplified using a fast-acting compression hearing aid simulator. Preferences were determined using an adaptive paired comparison procedure. Listeners then rated speech and music samples processed using prescribed and preferred shaping across different sound quality descriptors. On average, low-frequency gain was significantly increased relative to the prescription for all stimuli and most substantially for pop and classical music. High-frequency gain was decreased significantly for pop music and male speech. Gain adjustments, particularly in the mid- and high-frequency bands, varied considerably between listeners. Music preferences were driven by changes in perceived fullness and sharpness, whereas speech preferences were driven by changes in perceived intelligibility and loudness. The results generally support the use of prescribed amplification to optimize speech intelligibility and alternative amplification for music listening for most listeners.

Consistency of Hearing Aid Setting Preference in Simulated Real-World Environments: Implications for Trainable Hearing Aids

Trainable hearing aids let users fine-tune their hearing aid settings in their own listening environment: Based on consistent user-adjustments and information about the acoustic environment, the trainable aids will change environment-specific settings to the user's preference. A requirement for effective fine-tuning is consistency of preference for similar settings in similar environments. The aim of this study was to evaluate consistency of preference for settings differing in intensity, gain-frequency slope, and directionality when listening in simulated real-world environments and to determine if participants with more consistent preferences could be identified based on profile measures. A total of 52 adults (63-88 years) with hearing varying from normal to a moderate sensorineural hearing loss selected their preferred setting from pairs differing in intensity (3 or 6 dB), gain-frequency slope (±1.3 or ± 2.7 dB/octave), or directionality (omnidirectional vs. cardioid) in four simulated real-world environments: traffic noise, a monologue in traffic noise at 5 dB signal-to-noise ratio, and a dialogue in café noise at 5 and at 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Forced-choice comparisons were made 10 times for each combination of pairs of settings and environment. Participants also completed nine psychoacoustic, cognitive, and personality measures. Consistency of preference, defined by a setting preferred at least 9 out of 10 times, varied across participants. More participants obtained consistent preferences for larger differences between settings and less difficult environments. The profile measures did not predict consistency of preference. Trainable aid users could benefit from counselling to ensure realistic expectations for particular adjustments and listening situations.

Validation of a Self-Fitting Method for Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids

In common practice, hearing aids are fitted by a clinician who measures an audiogram and uses it to generate prescriptive gain and output targets. This report describes an alternative method where users select their own signal processing parameters using an interface consisting of two wheels that optimally map to simultaneous control of gain and compression in each frequency band. The real-world performance of this approach was evaluated via a take-home field trial. Participants with hearing loss were fitted using clinical best practices (audiogram, fit to target, real-ear verification, and subsequent fine tuning). Then, in their everyday lives over the course of a month, participants either selected their own parameters using this new interface (Self group; n = 38) or used the parameters selected by the clinician with limited control (Audiologist Best Practices Group; n = 37). On average, the gain selected by the Self group was within 1.8 dB overall and 5.6 dB per band of that selected by the audiologist. Participants in the Self group reported better sound quality than did those in the Audiologist Best Practices group. In blind sound quality comparisons conducted in the field, participants in the Self group slightly preferred the parameters they selected over those selected by the clinician. Finally, there were no differences between groups in terms of standard clinical measures of hearing aid benefit or speech perception in noise. Overall, the results indicate that it is possible for users to select effective amplification parameters by themselves using a simple interface that maps to key hearing aid signal processing parameters.

The perceptual limitations of troubleshooting hearing-aids based on patients' descriptions

OBJECTIVES

Hearing-aid frequency-gain responses are routinely adjusted by clinicians to patient preferences and descriptions. This study measured the minimum gain adjustments required to elicit preferences, and the assignment of descriptors to gain adjustments, to perceptually evaluate description-based troubleshooting.

DESIGN

Participants judged whether short sentences with ±0-12 dB gain adjustments in one of three frequency bands were "better", "worse" or "no different" from the same sentence at their individual real-ear or prescribed gain. If judged "better" or "worse", participants were then asked to assign one of the six common sound-quality descriptors to their preference.

STUDY SAMPLE

Thirty-two adults (aged 51-75 years) all with hearing-aid experience.

RESULTS

Median preference thresholds, the minimum gain adjustments to elicit "better" or "worse" judgments, ranged from 4 to 12 dB, increasing with frequency. There was some between-participant agreement in preferences: participants generally preferred greater low-frequency gain. Within-participant reliability for preferences was moderate. There was, however, little between-participant agreement in descriptor selection for gain adjustments. Furthermore, within-participant reliability for descriptor selection was lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

The scale of gain adjustments necessary to elicit preferences, along with the low agreement and reliability in descriptors for these adjustments questions the efficiency and efficacy of current description-based troubleshooting, especially with short speech stimuli.

Discrimination of Gain Increments in Speech

During a hearing-aid fitting, the gain applied across frequencies is often adjusted from an initial prescription in order to meet individual needs and preferences. These gain adjustments in one or more frequency bands are commonly verified using speech in quiet (e.g., the clinician’s own voice). Such adjustments may be unreliable and inefficient if they are not discriminable. To examine what adjustments are discriminable when made to speech, this study measured the just-noticeable differences (JNDs) for gain increments in male, single-talker sentences. Sentences were presented with prescribed gains to the better ears of 41 hearing-impaired listeners. JNDs were measured at d’ of 1 for octave-band, dual-octave-band, and broadband increments using a fixed-level, same-different task. The JNDs and interquartile ranges for 0.25, 1, and 4 kHz octave-band increments were 6.3 [4.0–7.8], 6.7 [4.6–9.1], and 9.6 [7.3–12.4] dB, respectively. The JNDs and interquartile ranges for low-, mid-, and high-frequency dual-octave-band increments were 3.7 [2.5–4.6], 3.8 [2.9–4.7], and 6.8 [4.7–9.1] dB, respectively. The JND for broadband increments was 2.0 [1.5–2.7] dB. High-frequency dual-octave-band JNDs were positively correlated with high-frequency pure-tone thresholds and sensation levels, suggesting an effect of audibility for this condition. All other JNDs were independent of pure-tone threshold and sensation level. JNDs were independent of age and hearing-aid experience. These results suggest using large initial adjustments when using short sentences in a hearing-aid fitting to ensure patient focus, followed by smaller subsequent adjustments, if necessary, to ensure audibility, comfort, and stability.