scholarly journals Clinical Performance Evaluation of a Personal Sound Amplification Product vs a Basic Hearing Aid and a Premium Hearing Aid

2019 ◽  
Vol 145 (6) ◽  
pp. 516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young Sang Cho ◽  
Su Yeon Park ◽  
Hye Yoon Seol ◽  
Ji Hyun Lim ◽  
Yang-Sun Cho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Amplification Product ◽  
Sound Amplification

scholarly journals A Personal Sound Amplification Product Compared to a Basic Hearing Aid for Speech Intelligibility in Adults with Mild-to-Moderate Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-98
Author(s):  
Ji Eun Choi ◽  
Jinryoul Kim ◽  
Sung Hoon Yoon ◽  
Sung Hwa Hong ◽  
Il Joon Moon
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Quality ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Amplification Product ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sound Amplification

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to compare functional hearing with the use of a personal sound amplification product (PSAP) or a basic hearing aid (HA) among sensorineural hearing impaired listeners.Subjects and Methods: Nineteen participants with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) (26-55 dB HL; pure-tone average, 0.5-4 kHz) were prospectively included. No participants had prior experience with HAs or PSAPs. Audiograms, speech intelligibility in both quiet and noisy environments, speech quality, and preference were assessed in three different listening conditions: unaided, with the HA, and with the PSAP. Results: The use of PSAP was associated with significant improvement in pure-tone thresholds at 1, 2, and 4 kHz compared to the unaided condition (all <i>p</i> <0.01). In the quiet environment, speech intelligibility was significantly improved after wearing a PSAP compared to the unaided condition (<i>p</i> <0.001), and this improvement was better than the result obtained with the HA. The PSAP also demonstrated similar improvement in the most comfortable levels compared to those obtained with the HA (<i>p</i> <0.05). However, there was no significant improvement of speech intelligibility in a noisy environment when wearing the PSAP (<i>p</i> =0.160). There was no significant difference in the reported speech quality produced by either device or in participant preference for the PSAP or HA. Conclusions: The current result suggests that PSAPs provide considerable benefits to speech intelligibility in a quiet environment and can be a good alternative to compensate for mild-to-moderate SNHL.

Feasibility of smartphone-based hearing-aid apps for patients with mild hearing loss: an exploratory pilot study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willy Nguyen ◽  
Miseung Koo ◽  
Seung Ha Oh ◽  
Jun Ho Lee ◽  
Moo Kyun Park
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Hearing In Noise ◽  
Mild Hearing Loss ◽  
Consumer Devices ◽  
Selection Of

BACKGROUND Underuse of hearing aids is caused by several factors, including the stigma associated with hearing disability, affordability, and lack of awareness of rising hearing impairment associated with the growing population. Thus, there is a significant opportunity for the development of direct-to-consumer devices. For the past few years, smartphone-based hearing-aid apps have become more numerous and diverse, but few studies have investigated them. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to elucidate the electroacoustic characteristics and potential user benefits of a selection of currently available hearing-aid apps. METHODS We investigated the apps based on hearing-aid control standards (American National Standards Institute) using measurement procedures from previous studies. We categorized the apps and excluded those we considered inefficient. We investigated a selection of user-friendly, low-end apps, EarMachine and Sound Amplifier, with warble-tone audiometry, word recognition testing in unaided and aided conditions, and hearing-in-noise test in quiet and noise-front conditions in a group of users with mild hearing impairment (n = 7) as a pilot for a future long-term investigation. Results from the apps were compared with those of a conventional hearing aid. RESULTS Five of 14 apps were considered unusable based on low scores in several metrics, while the others varied across the range of electroacoustic measurements. The apps that we considered “high end” that provided lower processing latencies and audiogram-based fitting algorithms were superior overall. The clinical performance of the listeners tended to be better when using hearing aid, while the low end hearing-aid apps had limited benefits on the users. CONCLUSIONS Some apps showed the potential to benefit users with limited cases of minimal or mild hearing loss if the inconvenience of relatively poor electroacoustic performance did not outweigh the benefits of amplification.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document