Clinical Comparison of a Hearing Aid, a Personal Sound Amplification Product, and a Wearable Augmented Reality Device.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Seol HY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8373828 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceHearing loss is a highly prevalent condition with multiple negative associated outcomes, yet few persons with hearing loss have hearing aids (HAs). Personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) could be an alternative low-cost solution to HAs, but data are lacking on the performance of PSAPs.ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of a PSAP by comparing its performance with that of a basic HA and a premium HA in participants with mild, moderate, and moderately severe hearing impairment.Design, setting, and participantsA prospective, single-institution cohort study was performed with a total of 56 participants, including 19 with mild hearing loss, 20 with moderate hearing loss, and 17 with moderately severe hearing loss. All participants underwent 4 clinical hearing tests with each of the PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA, and all completed an evaluative questionnaire.InterventionsAll hearing devices (PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA) were applied by a clinician to prevent bias and order effects; participants were blinded to the device in use, and sequence of devices was randomized.Main outcomes and measuresThe study used the Korean version of the hearing in noise test, the speech intelligibility in noise test, listening effort measurement using a dual-task paradigm, pupillometry, and a self-rating questionnaire regarding sound quality and preference. These tests were administered under the following 4 hearing conditions: unaided hearing, use of PSAP, use of basic HA, and use of premium HA.ResultsThe study included 56 participants with a mean age of 56 years (interquartile range, 48-59 years); 29 (52%) were women. In the mild and moderate hearing loss groups, there was no meaningful difference between PSAP, basic HA, and premium HA for speech perception (Cohen d = 0.06-1.05), sound quality (Cohen d = 0.06-0.71), listening effort (Cohen d = 0.10-0.92), and user preference (PSAP, 41%; basic HA, 28%; premium HA, 31%). However, for the patients with moderately severe hearing loss, the premium HA had better performance across most tests (Cohen d = 0.60-1.59), and 70% of participants preferred to use the premium HA.Conclusions and relevanceThe results indicate that basic and premium HAs were not superior to the PSAP in patients with mild to moderate hearing impairment, which suggests that PSAPs might be used as an alternative to HAs in these patient populations. However, if hearing loss is more severe, then HAs, especially premium HAs, should be considered as an option to manage hearing loss.
| S-EPMC6537843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHearing loss is a common morbidity that requires a hearing device to improve quality of life and prevent sequelae, such as dementia, depression falls, and cardiovascular disease. However, conventional hearing aids have some limitations, including poor accessibility and unaffordability. Consequently, personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) are considered a potential first-line alternative remedy for patients with hearing loss. The main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of PSAPs and conventional hearing aids regarding hearing benefits in patients with hearing loss.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases and reference lists were searched from inception to January 12, 2022. Studies including randomised, controlled trials; nonrandomised, controlled trials; or observational studies comparing PSAPs and hearing aids with regard to hearing gain performance (e.g., speech intelligence) were considered eligible. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42021267187).FindingsOf 599 records identified in the preliminary search, five studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. A total of 124 patients were divided into the PSAP group and the conventional hearing aid group. Five studies including seven groups compared differences for speech intelligence in the signal-noise ratio (SNR) on the hearing in noise test (HINT) between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids. The pooled results showed nonsignificant differences in speech intelligence (SMD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.47; P = .41; I 2=65%), sound quality (SMD, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.87 to 0.13; P = .15; I 2=77%) and listening effort (SMD 0.02; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.29; P = .86; I 2=32%). Nonsignificant results were also observed in subsequent analyses after excluding patients with moderately severe hearing loss. Complete sensitivity analyses with all of the possible combinations suggested nonsignificant results in most of the comparisons between PSAPs and conventional hearing aids.InterpretationPSAPs are potentially beneficial as conventional hearing aids are in patients with hearing loss. The different features among PSAPs should be considered for patients indicated for hearing devices.FundingThis work was supported by grants from Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST-10-2622-8-075-001) and Veterans General Hospitals and University System of Taiwan Joint Research Program (VGHUST111-G6-11-2 and VGHUST111c-140).
| S-EPMC9006672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAge-related hearing loss that impairs daily communication is associated with adverse health outcomes, but use of hearing aids by older adults is low and disparities exist.ObjectiveTo test whether an affordable, accessible hearing care intervention, delivered by community health workers using over-the-counter hearing technology, could improve self-perceived communication function among older adults with hearing loss compared with a wait-list control.Design, setting, and participantsOpen-label randomized clinical trial conducted between April 2018 and October 2019 with 3-month data collection completed in June 2020. The trial took place at 13 community sites, including affordable independent housing complexes (n = 10), senior centers (n = 2), and an older adult social club (n = 1) in Baltimore, Maryland. A total of 151 participants aged 60 years or older with hearing loss were randomized.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive a community health worker-delivered hearing care intervention (n = 78) or to a wait-list control group (n = 73). The 2-hour intervention consisted of fitting a low-cost amplification device and instruction.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in self-perceived communication function (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version [HHIE-S]; score range, 0-40; higher scores indicate poorer function) from baseline to 3 months postrandomization. The average treatment effect was estimated using the doubly robust weighted least squares estimator, which uses an outcome regression model weighted by the inverse probability of attrition to account for baseline covariate imbalance and missing data.ResultsAmong 151 participants randomized (mean age, 76.7 [SD, 8.0] years; 101 [67.8%] women; 65 [43%] self-identified as African American; 96 [63.6%] with low income [<$25 000 annual household income]), 136 (90.1%) completed 3-month follow-up for the primary outcome. In the intervention group, 90.5% completed the intervention session and reported at least 1 hour of daily amplification use at 3 months postrandomization. Mean scores for the HHIE-S were 21.7 (SD, 9.4) at baseline and 7.9 (SD, 9.2) at 3 months (change of -13.2 [SD, 10.3]) in the intervention group, and 20.1 (SD, 10.1) at baseline and 21 (SD, 9.1) at 3 months (change of 0.6 [SD, 7.1]) in the control group. Self-perceived communication function significantly improved in the intervention group compared with the control group, with an estimated average treatment effect of the intervention of a -12.98-point HHIE-S change (95% CI, -15.51 to -10.42). No study-related adverse events were reported.Conclusions and relevanceAmong older adults with hearing loss, a community health worker-delivered personal sound amplification device intervention, compared with a wait-list control, significantly improved self-perceived communication function at 3 months. Findings are limited by the absence of a sham control, and further research is needed to understand effectiveness compared with other types of care delivery models and amplification devices.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03442296.
| S-EPMC9856971 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10520515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An artificial muscle actuator resolves practical engineering problems in compact wearable devices, which are limited to conventional actuators such as electromagnetic actuators. Abstracting the fundamental advantages of an artificial muscle actuator provides a small-scale, high-power actuating system with a sensing capability for developing varifocal augmented reality glasses and naturally fit haptic gloves. Here, we design a shape memory alloy-based lightweight and high-power artificial muscle actuator, the so-called compliant amplified shape memory alloy actuator. Despite its light weight (0.22 g), the actuator has a high power density of 1.7 kW/kg, an actuation strain of 300% under 80 g of external payload. We show how the actuator enables image depth control and an immersive tactile response in the form of augmented reality glasses and two-way communication haptic gloves whose thin form factor and high power density can hardly be achieved by conventional actuators.
| S-EPMC9293895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Commercial availability of three-dimensional (3D) augmented reality (AR) devices has increased interest in using this novel technology for visualizing neuroimaging data. Here, a technical workflow and algorithm for importing 3D surface-based segmentations derived from magnetic resonance imaging data into a head-mounted AR device is presented and illustrated on selected examples: the pial cortical surface of the human brain, fMRI BOLD maps, reconstructed white matter tracts, and a brain network of functional connectivity.
| S-EPMC5788830 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesPrevious work has suggested that individual characteristics, including amount of hearing loss, age, and working memory ability, may affect response to hearing aid signal processing. The present study aims to extend work using metrics to quantify cumulative signal modifications under simulated conditions to real hearing aids worn in everyday listening environments. Specifically, the goal was to determine whether individual factors such as working memory, age, and degree of hearing loss play a role in explaining how listeners respond to signal modifications caused by signal processing in real hearing aids, worn in the listener's everyday environment, over a period of time.DesignParticipants were older adults (age range 54-90 years) with symmetrical mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss. We contrasted two distinct hearing aid fittings: one designated as mild signal processing and one as strong signal processing. Forty-nine older adults were enrolled in the study and 35 participants had valid outcome data for both hearing aid fittings. The difference between the two settings related to the wide dynamic range compression and frequency compression features. Order of fittings was randomly assigned for each participant. Each fitting was worn in the listener's everyday environments for approximately 5 weeks before outcome measurements. The trial was double blind, with neither the participant nor the tester aware of the specific fitting at the time of the outcome testing. Baseline measures included a full audiometric evaluation as well as working memory and spectral and temporal resolution. The outcome was aided speech recognition in noise.ResultsThe two hearing aid fittings resulted in different amounts of signal modification, with significantly less modification for the mild signal processing fitting. The effect of signal processing on speech intelligibility depended on an individual's age, working memory capacity, and degree of hearing loss. Speech recognition with the strong signal processing decreased with increasing age. Working memory interacted with signal processing, with individuals with lower working memory demonstrating low speech intelligibility in noise with both processing conditions, and individuals with higher working memory demonstrating better speech intelligibility in noise with the mild signal processing fitting. Amount of hearing loss interacted with signal processing, but the effects were small. Individual spectral and temporal resolution did not contribute significantly to the variance in the speech intelligibility score.ConclusionsWhen the consequences of a specific set of hearing aid signal processing characteristics were quantified in terms of overall signal modification, there was a relationship between participant characteristics and recognition of speech at different levels of signal modification. Because the hearing aid fittings used were constrained to specific fitting parameters that represent the extremes of the signal modification that might occur in clinical fittings, future work should focus on similar relationships with more diverse types of signal processing parameters.
| S-EPMC6786927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To use data-logging technology to objectively track and identify predictors of hearing aid (HA) usage and aided sound exposure. Study Design Case series with planned data collection. Setting Tertiary academic medical center. Subjects and Methods Individuals with HAs between 2007 and 2016 were included (N = 431; mean, 74.6 years; 95% CI, 73.1-76.0). Data-logging technology intrinsic to new-generation HAs was enabled to track usage and sound exposure. With multivariable linear regression, age, sex, number of audiology visits, duration of audiologic follow-up, pure tone average, and HA side were assessed as predictors of usage (hours/day) and aided sound exposure (dB-hours/day; ie, "dose" of sound per day). Results Mean follow-up was 319 days (95% CI, 277-360). Mean HA usage was 8.4 hours/day (95% CI, 8.0-8.8; N = 431). Mean aided sound exposure was 440 dB-hours/day (95% CI, 385-493; n = 110). HA use (β < 0.001, P = .45) and aided sound exposure (β = -0.006, P = .87) were both stable over time. HA usage was associated only with hearing loss level (pure tone average; β = 0.030, P = .04). Aided sound exposure was associated only with duration of audiologic follow-up (β = 0.100, P = .02). Conclusion While measurement of HA use has traditionally relied on subjective reporting, data logging offers an objective tool to longitudinally track HA use and sound exposure. We demonstrate the feasibility of using this potentially powerful research tool. Usage and sound exposure were stable among patients throughout the study period. Use was greater among subjects with greater hearing loss. Maximizing aided sound exposure might be possible through continued audiology follow-up visits.
| S-EPMC7415337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is a long-standing tradition to assess hearing-aid benefits using lab-based speech intelligibility tests. Towards a more everyday-like scenario, the current study investigated the effects of hearing-aid amplification and noise on face-to-face communication between two conversational partners. Eleven pairs, consisting of a younger normal-hearing (NH) and an older hearing-impaired (HI) participant, solved spot-the-difference tasks while their conversations were recorded. In a two-block randomized design, the tasks were solved in quiet or noise, both with and without the HI participant receiving hearing-aid amplification with active occlusion cancellation. In the presence of 70 dB SPL babble noise, participants had fewer, slower, and less well-timed turn-starts, while speaking louder with longer inter-pausal units (IPUs, stretches of continuous speech surrounded by silence) and reducing their articulation rates. All these changes are indicative of increased communication effort. The timing of turn-starts by the HI participants exhibited more variability than that of their NH conversational partners. In the presence of background noise, the timing of turn-starts by the HI participants became even more variable, and their NH partners spoke louder. When the HI participants were provided with hearing-aid amplification, their timing of turn-starts became faster, they increased their articulation rate, and they produced shorter IPUs, all indicating reduced communication effort. In conclusion, measures of the conversational dynamics showed that background noise increased the communication effort, especially for the HI participants, and that providing hearing-aid amplification caused the HI participant to behave more like their NH conversational partner, especially in quiet situations.
| S-EPMC9310272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Augmented reality-delivered product information (ARPI) can overcome the limited space at the point of sale to inform shoppers on demand and will therefore become more widespread in brick-and-mortar stores. To fill the void of academic research, this paper develops a model of how consumers process ARPI and how ARPI can shape brand image and purchase intentions. Making use of the cues-filtered-out theory, this paper suggests that the effect of ARPI controllability depends on information detailedness. An unintended backfire effect of controllability occurs when the accessible information is detailed, which is explained by the mediating process via perceived comprehensiveness. This backfire effect is a risk primarily in busy shopping times. The main experiment conducted in a hypermarket and four follow-up studies (using field, lab, and video settings) empirically confirm the proposed model on the basis of different data sources, including usage tracking, questionnaires, and scanner data. The paper derives managerial implications and outlines directions for future research.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11747-022-00855-w.
| S-EPMC8987517 | biostudies-literature