A Comparison of Personal Sound Amplification Products and Hearing Aids in Ecologically Relevant Test Environments.

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the benefit of self-adjusted personal sound amplification products (PSAPs) to audiologist-fitted hearing aids based on speech recognition, listening effort, and sound quality in ecologically relevant test conditions to estimate real-world effectiveness. Method Twenty-five older adults with bilateral mild-to-moderate hearing loss completed the single-blinded, crossover study. Participants underwent aided testing using 3 PSAPs and a traditional hearing aid, as well as unaided testing. PSAPs were adjusted based on participant preference, whereas the hearing aid was configured using best-practice verification protocols. Audibility provided by the devices was quantified using the Speech Intelligibility Index (American National Standards Institute, 2012). Outcome measures assessing speech recognition, listening effort, and sound quality were administered in ecologically relevant laboratory conditions designed to represent real-world speech listening situations. Results All devices significantly improved Speech Intelligibility Index compared to unaided listening, with the hearing aid providing more audibility than all PSAPs. Results further revealed that, in general, the hearing aid improved speech recognition performance and reduced listening effort significantly more than all PSAPs. Few differences in sound quality were observed between devices. All PSAPs improved speech recognition and listening effort compared to unaided testing. Conclusions Hearing aids fitted using best-practice verification protocols were capable of providing more aided audibility, better speech recognition performance, and lower listening effort compared to the PSAPs tested in the current study. Differences in sound quality between the devices were minimal. However, because all PSAPs tested in the study significantly improved participants' speech recognition performance and reduced listening effort compared to unaided listening, PSAPs could serve as a budget-friendly option for those who cannot afford traditional amplification.

[1]  Gitte Keidser,et al.  Evaluation of the Self‐Fitting Process with a Commercially Available Hearing Aid , 2017, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[2]  Brian E. Walden Toward a Model Clinical-Trials Protocol for Substantiating Hearing Aid User-Benefit Claims , 1997 .

[3]  Sergei Kochkin,et al.  MarkeTrak VII: Obstacles to adult non‐user adoption of hearing aids , 2007 .

[4]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Lorienne M Jenstad,et al.  Evaluation of the Desired Sensation Level [Input/Output] Algorithm for Adults with Hearing Loss: The Acceptable Range for Amplified Conversational Speech , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[6]  R. Sims,et al.  Comparison of Psychophysiological and Dual-Task Measures of Listening Effort. , 2015, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[8]  G. Keidser,et al.  The NAL-NL2 Prescription Procedure , 2011, Audiology research.

[9]  G. Studebaker A "rationalized" arcsine transform. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[10]  Yu-Hsiang Wu,et al.  Impact of Visual Cues on Directional Benefit and Preference: Part I—Laboratory Tests , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[11]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit , 1995 .

[12]  Sridhar Kalluri,et al.  Objective measures of listening effort: effects of background noise and noise reduction. , 2009, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[13]  Matthew B. Winn,et al.  The Impact of Auditory Spectral Resolution on Listening Effort Revealed by Pupil Dilation , 2015, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Todd Ricketts,et al.  Real-world benefit from directional microphone hearing aids. , 2009, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[15]  Catherine Palmer,et al.  Evaluation of a second-order directional microphone hearing aid: I. Speech perception outcomes. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[16]  Larry E. Humes,et al.  The Effects of Service-Delivery Model and Purchase Price on Hearing-Aid Outcomes in Older Adults: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial , 2017, American journal of audiology.

[17]  R. Cox,et al.  A Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Listening Effort As Part of an Audiologic Test Battery. , 2015, American journal of audiology.

[18]  Wouter A Dreschler,et al.  Audiologist-Driven Versus Patient-Driven Fine Tuning of Hearing Instruments , 2012, Trends in amplification.

[19]  Pilot Electroacoustic Analyses of a Sample of Direct-to-Consumer Amplification Products. , 2017, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[20]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST) , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[21]  J. Betz,et al.  Personal Sound Amplification Products vs a Conventional Hearing Aid for Speech Understanding in Noise , 2017, JAMA.

[22]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[23]  B. McPherson,et al.  Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids: A Lost Decade for Change , 2015, BioMed research international.

[24]  T Ricketts,et al.  Impact of Noise Source Configuration on Directional Hearing Aid Benefit and Performance , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[25]  Yu-Hsiang Wu,et al.  Characteristics of Real-World Signal to Noise Ratios and Speech Listening Situations of Older Adults With Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss , 2017, Ear and hearing.

[26]  C. Gay,et al.  Older adults’ experiences and issues with hearing aids in the first six months after hearing aid fitting , 2018, International journal of audiology.

[27]  Rick van der Zwan,et al.  Medication Adherence in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Effect of Patient Education, Health Literacy, and Musculoskeletal Ultrasound , 2015, BioMed research international.

[28]  Sigfrid D Soli,et al.  Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the Hearing in Noise Test , 2008, International journal of audiology.

[29]  Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids: Eiectroacoustic Characteristics and Possible Target Client Groups , 2000, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[30]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment. A randomized trial. , 1990, Annals of internal medicine.