Dataset Information

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Advanced Hearing Aid Directional and Noise Reduction Technologies for Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The purpose of the present study was to investigate the laboratory efficacy and real-world effectiveness of advanced directional microphones (DM) and digital noise reduction (NR) algorithms (i.e., premium DM/NR features) relative to basic-level DM/NR features of contemporary hearing aids (HAs). The study also examined the effect of premium HAs relative to basic HAs and the effect of DM/NR features relative to no features. DESIGN:Fifty-four older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss completed a single-blinded crossover trial. Two HA models, one a less-expensive, basic-level device (basic HA) and the other a more-expensive, advanced-level device (premium HA), were used. The DM/NR features of the basic HAs (i.e., basic features) were adaptive DMs and gain-reduction NR with fewer channels. In contrast, the DM/NR features of the premium HAs (i.e., premium features) included adaptive DMs and gain-reduction NR with more channels, bilateral beamformers, speech-seeking DMs, pinna-simulation directivity, reverberation reduction, impulse NR, wind NR, and spatial NR. The trial consisted of four conditions, which were factorial combinations of HA model (premium versus basic) and DM/NR feature status (on versus off). To blind participants regarding the HA technology, no technology details were disclosed and minimal training on how to use the features was provided. In each condition, participants wore bilateral HAs for 5 weeks. Outcomes regarding speech understanding, listening effort, sound quality, localization, and HA satisfaction were measured using laboratory tests, retrospective self-reports (i.e., standardized questionnaires), and in-situ self-reports (i.e., self-reports completed in the real world in real time). A smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment system was used to collect in-situ self-reports. RESULTS:Laboratory efficacy data generally supported the benefit of premium DM/NR features relative to basic DM/NR, premium HAs relative to basic HAs, and DM/NR features relative to no DM/NR in improving speech understanding and localization performance. Laboratory data also indicated that DM/NR features could improve listening effort and sound quality compared with no features for both basic- and premium-level HAs. For real-world effectiveness, in-situ self-reports first indicated that noisy or very noisy situations did not occur very often in participants' daily lives (10.9% of the time). Although both retrospective and in-situ self-reports indicated that participants were more satisfied with HAs equipped with DM/NR features than without, there was no strong evidence to support the benefit of premium DM/NR features and premium HAs over basic DM/NR features and basic HAs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Although premium DM/NR features and premium HAs outperformed their basic-level counterparts in well-controlled laboratory test conditions, the benefits were not observed in the real world. In contrast, the effect of DM/NR features relative to no features was robust both in the laboratory and in the real world. Therefore, the present study suggests that although both premium and basic DM/NR technologies evaluated in the study have the potential to improve HA outcomes, older adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss are unlikely to perceive the additional benefits provided by the premium DM/NR features in their daily lives. Limitations concerning the study's generalizability (e.g., participant's lifestyle) are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Wu YH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6491270 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul/Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Advanced Hearing Aid Directional and Noise Reduction Technologies for Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.

Wu Yu-Hsiang YH Stangl Elizabeth E Chipara Octav O Hasan Syed Shabih SS DeVries Sean S Oleson Jacob J

Ear and hearing 20190701 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>The purpose of the present study was to investigate the laboratory efficacy and real-world effectiveness of advanced directional microphones (DM) and digital noise reduction (NR) algorithms (i.e., premium DM/NR features) relative to basic-level DM/NR features of contemporary hearing aids (HAs). The study also examined the effect of premium HAs relative to basic HAs and the effect of DM/NR features relative to no features.<h4>Design</h4>Fifty-four older adults with mild-to-mode ...[more]

PMID: 30379683

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHearing loss is a growing health concern worldwide. Hearing aids (HAs) are the treatment of choice for hearing rehabilitation in most cases of mild-to-moderate hearing loss. However, many patients with hearing loss do not use HAs due to their high cost, stigma, and inaccessibility. Since smartphones are widely used, many apps that mimic the amplification function of HAs have been introduced. Smartphone-based HA apps (SHAAs) are affordable and easy to access. However, the audiological benefit of SHAAs has not been determined.ObjectiveWe compared the audiological performance between an SHAA and a conventional HA in a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial.MethodsPatients with mild-to-moderate hearing loss were prospectively enrolled from 2 tertiary hospitals and randomly assigned to either an SHAA (Petralex; IT4YOU Corp LLC) or a conventional HA (Siya 1 miniRITE; Oticon A/S). For the cross-over study design, participants used the alternate device and repeated the same 2-month trial. Audiological measurements were obtained using hearing tests, real-ear measurements, and the hearing-in-noise test (HINT). Subjective satisfaction was evaluated using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA).ResultsOverall, 63 participants were screened and 38 completed the study. In sound-field audiometry testing, the SHAA showed a 20- to 60-dB gain in the low-to-high frequencies of the hearing threshold level. The HA provided adequate gain in the middle-to-high frequencies (55, 65, and 75 dB in real-ear measurements), which is the sound level for most speaking volumes. However, the SHAA could not improve word recognition at 50 dB. The HA showed better audiological performance than the SHAA in both quiet and noisy conditions in the HINT. The IOI-HA scores were significantly improved by both the HA and SHAA versus unaided conditions. Among the SHAA users, 37% (14/38), 42% (16/38), 24% (9/38), and 32% (12/38) showed improvement in APHAB scores for ease of communication, reverberation, background noise, and aversiveness of sounds, respectively. There were no differences in adverse events between the 2 study groups.ConclusionsThe HA showed better performance than the SHAA in word recognition and the HINT. However, the SHAA was significantly better than unaided hearing in terms of amplification. The SHAA may be a useful hearing assistance device for patients with mild-to-moderate hearing loss when listening to soft sounds in quiet conditions. The SHAA demonstrated poorer performance than the HA in the mid- to high-frequency sounds that are important for word recognition, sound quality, and hearing in noisy conditions. Further development of the signal technology of SHAAs is needed to improve the sound quality of mid- to high-frequency sounds and overcome noisy environments.

Project description:ObjectivesSelectively attending to a target talker while ignoring multiple interferers (competing talkers and background noise) is more difficult for hearing-impaired (HI) individuals compared to normal-hearing (NH) listeners. Such tasks also become more difficult as background noise levels increase. To overcome these difficulties, hearing aids (HAs) offer noise reduction (NR) schemes. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of NR processing (inactive, where the NR feature was switched off, vs. active, where the NR feature was switched on) on the neural representation of speech envelopes across two different background noise levels [+3 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and +8 dB SNR] by using a stimulus reconstruction (SR) method.DesignTo explore how NR processing supports the listeners' selective auditory attention, we recruited 22 HI participants fitted with HAs. To investigate the interplay between NR schemes, background noise, and neural representation of the speech envelopes, we used electroencephalography (EEG). The participants were instructed to listen to a target talker in front while ignoring a competing talker in front in the presence of multi-talker background babble noise.ResultsThe results show that the neural representation of the attended speech envelope was enhanced by the active NR scheme for both background noise levels. The neural representation of the attended speech envelope at lower (+3 dB) SNR was shifted, approximately by 5 dB, toward the higher (+8 dB) SNR when the NR scheme was turned on. The neural representation of the ignored speech envelope was modulated by the NR scheme and was mostly enhanced in the conditions with more background noise. The neural representation of the background noise was modulated (i.e., reduced) by the NR scheme and was significantly reduced in the conditions with more background noise. The neural representation of the net sum of the ignored acoustic scene (ignored talker and background babble) was not modulated by the NR scheme but was significantly reduced in the conditions with a reduced level of background noise. Taken together, we showed that the active NR scheme enhanced the neural representation of both the attended and the ignored speakers and reduced the neural representation of background noise, while the net sum of the ignored acoustic scene was not enhanced.ConclusionAltogether our results support the hypothesis that the NR schemes in HAs serve to enhance the neural representation of speech and reduce the neural representation of background noise during a selective attention task. We contend that these results provide a neural index that could be useful for assessing the effects of HAs on auditory and cognitive processing in HI populations.

Project description:BackgroundThe main clinical intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss is the provision of hearing aids. These are routinely offered and fitted to those who seek help for hearing difficulties. By amplifying and improving access to sounds, and speech sounds in particular, the aim of hearing aid use is to reduce the negative consequences of hearing loss and improve participation in everyday life.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.Search methodsThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; the Cochrane Register of Studies Online; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 March 2017.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hearing aids compared to a passive or active control in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes in this review were hearing-specific health-related quality of life and the adverse effect pain. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, listening ability and the adverse effect noise-induced hearing loss. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.Main resultsWe included five RCTs involving 825 participants. The studies were carried out in the USA and Europe, and were published between 1987 and 2017. Risk of bias across the studies varied. Most had low risk for selection, reporting and attrition bias, and a high risk for performance and detection bias because blinding was inadequate or absent.All participants had mild to moderate hearing loss. The average age across all five studies was between 69 and 83 years. The duration of the studies ranged between six weeks and six months.There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on hearing-specific health-related quality of life associated with participation in daily life as measured using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE, scale range 1 to 100) compared to the unaided/placebo condition (mean difference (MD) -26.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -42.16 to -10.77; 722 participants; three studies) (moderate-quality evidence).There was a small beneficial effect of hearing aids on general health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.21; 568 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on listening ability (SMD -1.88, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.52; 534 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence).Adverse effects were measured in only one study (48 participants) and none were reported (very low-quality evidence).Authors' conclusionsThe available evidence concurs that hearing aids are effective at improving hearing-specific health-related quality of life, general health-related quality of life and listening ability in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. The evidence is compatible with the widespread provision of hearing aids as the first-line clinical management in those who seek help for hearing difficulties. Greater consistency is needed in the choice of outcome measures used to assess benefits from hearing aids. Further placebo-controlled studies would increase our confidence in the estimates of these effects and ascertain whether they vary according to age, gender, degree of hearing loss and type of hearing aid.

Project description:ImportanceHearing 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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.InterventionsA 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 measuresThe 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).ResultsSixty-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 relevanceIn 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05337748.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Advanced Hearing Aid Directional and Noise Reduction Technologies for Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.

Publications

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Advanced Hearing Aid Directional and Noise Reduction Technologies for Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets