scholarly journals Unilateral hearing loss and the use of hearing aid: speech recognition, benefit, self-perception of functional performance and satisfaction

Revista CEFAC ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidiéli Dalla Costa ◽  
Sinéia Neujahr dos Santos ◽  
Maristela Julio Costa
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Functional Performance ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Sound Amplification

ABSTRACT Purpose: to investigate speech recognition in silence and in noise in subjects with unilateral hearing loss with and without hearing aids, and to analyze the benefit, self-perception of functional performance, satisfaction and the use of hearing aids in these subjects. Methods: eleven adults with unilateral, mixed and sensorineural, mild to severe hearing loss participated in this study. Speech recognition was evaluated by the Brazilian Portuguese sentences lists test; functional performance of the hearing was assessed by using the Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale questionnaire; satisfaction was assessed by the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life questionnaire, both in Brazilian Portuguese; and to assess the use of hearing aids, the patient's report was analyzed. Results: the adaptation of hearing aids provided benefits in speech recognition in all positions evaluated, both in silence and in noise. The subjects did not report major limitations in communication activities with the use of hearing aids. They were satisfied with the use of sound amplification. Most of the subjects did not use hearing aids, effectively. The discontinuity of hearing aids use can be justified by the difficulty on perceiving participation’s restriction caused by hearing loss, as well as the benefit of the hearing aid, besides the concern with batteries’ costs and aesthetic aspects. Conclusion: although showing benefits in speech recognition, in silence and in noise, and satisfaction with sound amplification, most subjects with unilateral hearing loss do not effectively use hearing aids.

Low-level Speech Recognition of Children with Hearing Aids

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jace Wolfe ◽  
Mila Duke ◽  
Sharon Miller ◽  
Erin Schafer ◽  
Christine Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Background: For children with hearing loss, the primary goal of hearing aids is to provide improved access to the auditory environment within the limits of hearing aid technology and the child’s auditory abilities. However, there are limited data examining aided speech recognition at very low (40 dBA) and low (50 dBA) presentation levels. Purpose: Due to the paucity of studies exploring aided speech recognition at low presentation levels for children with hearing loss, the present study aimed to 1) compare aided speech recognition at different presentation levels between groups of children with normal hearing and hearing loss, 2) explore the effects of aided pure tone average (PTA) and aided Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) on aided speech recognition at low presentation levels for children with hearing loss ranging in degree from mild to severe, and 3) evaluate the effect of increasing low-level gain on aided speech recognition of children with hearing loss. Research Design: In phase 1 of this study, a two-group, repeated-measures design was used to evaluate differences in speech recognition. In phase 2 of this study, a single-group, repeated-measures design was used to evaluate the potential benefit of additional low-level hearing aid gain for low-level aided speech recognition of children with hearing loss. Study Sample: The first phase of the study included 27 school-age children with mild to severe sensorineural hearing loss and 12 school-age children with normal hearing. The second phase included eight children with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. Intervention: Prior to the study, children with hearing loss were fitted binaurally with digital hearing aids. Children in the second phase were fitted binaurally with digital study hearing aids and completed a trial period with two different gain settings: 1) gain required to match hearing aid output to prescriptive targets (i.e., primary program), and 2) a 6-dB increase in overall gain for low-level inputs relative to the primary program. In both phases of this study, real-ear verification measures were completed to ensure the hearing aid output matched prescriptive targets. Data Collection and Analysis: Phase 1 included monosyllabic word recognition and syllable-final plural recognition at three presentation levels (40, 50, and 60 dBA). Phase 2 compared speech recognition performance for the same test measures and presentation levels with two differing gain prescriptions. Results and Conclusions: In phase 1 of the study, aided speech recognition was significantly poorer in children with hearing loss at all presentation levels. Higher aided SII in the better ear (55 dB SPL input) was associated with higher CNC word recognition at a 40 dBA presentation level. In phase 2, increasing the hearing aid gain for low-level inputs provided a significant improvement in syllable-final plural recognition at very low-level inputs and resulted in a non-significant trend toward better monosyllabic word recognition at very low presentation levels. Additional research is needed to document the speech recognition difficulties children with hearing aids may experience with low-level speech in the real world as well as the potential benefit or detriment of providing additional low-level hearing aid gain

scholarly journals Evidence of Acclimatization in Persons with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (02) ◽  
pp. 084-099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis K. Kuk ◽  
Lisa Potts ◽  
Michael Valente ◽  
Lidia Lee ◽  
Jay Picirrillo
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Secondary Purpose ◽  
Objective Performance ◽  
Recognition Testing ◽  
The One ◽  
Better Than

The present study examined the phenomenon of acclimatization in persons with a severe-to-profound hearing loss. A secondary purpose was to examine the efficacy of a digital nonlinear power hearing aid that has a low compression threshold with expansion for this population. Twenty experienced hearing aid users wore the study hearing aids for three months and their performance with the study hearing aids was evaluated at the initial fitting, one month, and three months after the initial fitting. Performance of their current hearing aids was also evaluated at the initial fitting. Speech recognition testing was conducted at input levels of 50 dB SPL and 65 dB SPL in quiet, and 75 dB SPL in noise at a +10 SNR. Questionnaires were used to measure subjective performance at each evaluation interval. The results showed improvement in speech recognition score at the one-month evaluation over the initial evaluation. No significant improvement was seen at the three-month evaluation from the one-month visit. In addition, subjective and objective performance of the study hearing aids was significantly better than the participants' own hearing aids at all evaluation intervals. These results provided evidence of acclimatization in persons with a severe-to-profound hearing loss and reinforced the precaution that any trial of amplification, especially from linear to nonlinear mode, should consider this phenomenon.

The Effects of Changes in Head Angle on Auditory and Visual Input for Omnidirectional and Directional Microphone Hearing Aids

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Henry ◽  
Todd Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Visual Cues ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Increase Signal Intensity ◽  
Visual Mode

Improving the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for individuals with hearing loss who are listening to speech in noise provides an obvious benefit. Although binaural hearing provides the greatest advantage over monaural hearing in noise, some individuals with symmetrical hearing loss choose to wear only one hearing aid. The present study tested the hypothesis that individuals with symmetrical hearing loss fit with one hearing aid would demonstrate improved speech recognition in background noise with increases in head turn. Fourteen individuals were fit monaurally with a Starkey Gemini in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid with directional and omnidirectional microphone modes. Speech recognition performance in noise was tested using the audiovisual version of the Connected Speech Test (CST v.3). The test was administered in auditory-only conditions as well as with the addition of visual cues for each of three head angles: 0°, 20°, and 40°. Results indicated improvement in speech recognition performance with changes in head angle for the auditory-only presentation mode at the 20° and 40° head angles when compared to 0°. Improvement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 20° head angle when compared to 0°. Additionally, a decrement in speech recognition performance for the auditory + visual mode was noted for the 40° head angle when compared to 0°. These results support a speech recognition advantage for listeners fit with one ITE hearing aid listening in a close listener-to-speaker distance when they turn their head slightly in order to increase signal intensity.

scholarly journals Applying the COM-B Model to Assess the Usability of Smartphone-Connected Listening Devices in Adults with Hearing Loss

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (05) ◽  
pp. 417-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Maidment ◽  
Yasmin H. K. Ali ◽  
Melanie A. Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sampling Strategy ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Sound Amplification ◽  
Fine Tune ◽  
Moderate Hearing Loss

AbstractUnlike conventional hearing aids, smartphone-connected listening devices may require limited or no input from a trained audiologist in terms of device programming and adjustment. However, there is a lack of peer-reviewed evidence assessing the real-world perspectives of people living with hearing loss toward such technological innovations.This study assessed the everyday experiences of adults living with hearing loss toward a range of smartphone-connected listening devices using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model as a theoretical framework.A qualitative study where participants trialed one of the following smartphone-connected listening devices for two weeks in their everyday lives: made-for-smartphone hearing aid, personal sound amplification product, and smartphone “hearing aid” app with wired earphones or wireless hearable. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted.Twenty adults (13 male and 7 female; mean age = 62.25 years, SD = 11.59) with mild-to-moderate hearing loss (mean better ear pure-tone average = 30.49 dB HL, SD = 17.51) were recruited using a convenience sampling strategy. All participants owned conventional hearing aids.The data were analyzed using an established deductive thematic analysis procedure within the context of the COM-B model. The model stipulates that for individuals to engage in a particular behavior (B), they must have sufficient capability (C), opportunity (O), and motivation (M). Capability: One of the key advantages facilitating use and adherence of smartphone-connected listening devices was the ability for participants to make fine-tune adjustments in any listening situation. Opportunity: Participants commented that these devices could address issues surrounding stigma as smartphones are ubiquitous in everyday life. Motivation: Participants consistently reported that the ability to make adjustments via a smartphone provided them with a greater sense of autonomy and empowerment. As a result, they felt more in control of their hearing loss.This study lays the foundation for further high-quality research to explore whether smartphone-connected technologies have the potential to yield optimum benefits for people living with hearing loss.

scholarly journals Hearing Aid Treatment for Patients with Mixed Hearing Loss. Part II: Speech Recognition in Comparison to Direct Acoustic Cochlear Stimulation

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-142
Author(s):  
Nina Wardenga ◽  
Ad F.M. Snik ◽  
Eugen Kludt ◽  
Bernd Waldmann ◽  
Thomas Lenarz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Middle Ear ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Middle Ear Surgery ◽  
Promising Alternative ◽  
Mixed Hearing Loss ◽  
Technical Specifications

Background: The conventional therapy for severe mixed hearing loss is middle ear surgery combined with a power hearing aid. However, a substantial group of patients with severe mixed hearing loss cannot be treated adequately with today’s state-of-the-art (SOTA) power hearing aids, as predicted by the accompanying part I of this publication, where we compared the available maximum power output (MPO) and gain from technical specifications to requirements for optimum benefit using a common fitting rule. Here, we intended to validate the theoretical assumptions from part I experimentally in a mixed hearing loss cohort fitted with SOTA power hearing aids. Additionally, we compared the results with an implantable hearing device that circumvents the impaired middle ear, directly stimulating the cochlea, as this might be a better option. Objectives: Speech recognition outcomes obtained from patients with severe mixed hearing loss supplied acutely with a SOTA hearing aid were studied to validate the outcome predictions as described in part I. Further, the results obtained with hearing aids were compared to those in direct acoustic cochlear implant (DACI) users. Materials and Methods: Twenty patients (37 ears with mixed hearing loss) were provided and fitted with a SOTA power hearing aid. Before and after an acclimatization period of at least 4 weeks, word recognition scores (WRS) in quiet and in noise were studied, as well as the speech reception threshold in noise (SRT). The outcomes were compared retrospectively to a second group of 45 patients (47 ears) using the DACI device. Based on the severity of the mixed hearing loss and the available gain and MPO of the SOTA hearing aid, the hearing aid and DACI users were subdivided into groups with prediction of sufficient, partially insufficient, or very insufficient hearing aid performance. Results: The patients with predicted adequate SOTA hearing aid performance indeed showed the best WRS in quiet and in noise when compared to patients with predicted inferior outcomes. Insufficient hearing aid performance at one or more frequencies led to a gradual decrease in hearing aid benefit, validating the criteria used here and in the accompanying paper. All DACI patients showed outcomes at the same level as the adequate hearing aid performance group, being significantly better than those of the groups with inadequate hearing aid performance. Whereas WRS in quiet and noise were sensitive to insufficient gain or output, showing significant differences between the SOTA hearing aid and DACI groups, the SRT in noise was less sensitive. Conclusions: Limitations of outcomes in mixed hearing loss individuals due to insufficient hearing aid performance can be accurately predicted by applying a commonly used fitting rule and the 35-dB dynamic range rule on the hearing aid specifications. Evidently, when outcomes in patients with mixed hearing loss using the most powerful hearing aids are insufficient, bypassing the middle ear with a powerful active middle ear implant or direct acoustic implant can be a promising alternative treatment.

scholarly journals Impact of Unilateral Hearing Loss on Behavioral and Evoked Potential Measures of Auditory Function in Adults

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (07) ◽  
pp. 564-578
Author(s):  
Oscar M. Cañete ◽  
Suzanne C. Purdy ◽  
Colin R. S. Brown ◽  
Michel Neeff ◽  
Peter R. Thorne
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potentials ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Speech Detection

AbstractA unilateral hearing loss (UHL) can have a significant functional and social impact on children and adults, affecting their quality of life. In adults, UHL is typically associated with difficulties understanding speech in noise and sound localization, and UHL increases the self-perception of auditory disability for a range of listening situations. Furthermore, despite evidence for the negative effects of reduced unilateral auditory input on the neural encoding of binaural cues, the perceptual consequences of these changes are still not well understood.Determine effects of UHL on auditory abilities and speech-evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs).CAEPs, sound localization, speech perception in noise and self-perception of auditory abilities (speech, spatial, and qualities hearing scale) were assessed.Thirteen adults with UHL with a range of etiologies, duration of hearing loss, and severity and a control group of eleven binaural listeners with normal hearing.Participants with UHL varied greatly in their ability to localize sound and reported speech recognition and listening effort were the greatest problem. There was a greater effect of right ear than left ear hearing loss on N1 amplitude hemispheric asymmetry and N1 latencies evoked by speech syllables in noise. As duration of hearing loss increased, contralateral dominance (N1 amplitude asymmetry) decreased. N1 amplitudes correlated with speech scores, larger N1 amplitudes were associated with better speech recognition in noise scores. N1 latencies are delayed (in the better ear) and amplitude hemisphere asymmetry differed across UHL participants as function of side of deafness, mainly for right-sided deafness.UHL affects a range of auditory abilities, including speech detection in noise, sound localization, and self-perceived hearing disability. CAEPs elicited by speech sounds are sensitive enough to evidence changes within the auditory cortex due to an UHL.

Are Two Ears Not Better Than One?

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 171-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. McArdle ◽  
Mead Killion ◽  
Monica A. Mennite ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Binaural Hearing ◽  
Analysis Experiment ◽  
Insert Earphones ◽  
Speech Recognition In Noise

Background: The decision to fit one or two hearing aids in individuals with binaural hearing loss has been debated for years. Although some 78% of U.S. hearing aid fittings are binaural (Kochkin , 2010), Walden and Walden (2005) presented data showing that 82% (23 of 28 patients) of their sample obtained significantly better speech recognition in noise scores when wearing one hearing aid as opposed to two. Purpose: To conduct two new experiments to fuel the monaural/binaural debate. The first experiment was a replication of Walden and Walden (2005), whereas the second experiment examined the use of binaural cues to improve speech recognition in noise. Research Design: A repeated measures experimental design. Study Sample: Twenty veterans (aged 59–85 yr), with mild to moderately severe binaurally symmetrical hearing loss who wore binaural hearing aids were recruited from the Audiology Department at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. Data Collection and Analysis: Experiment 1 followed the procedures of the Walden and Walden study, where signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was measured using the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test on participants who were aided with their current hearing aids. Signal and noise were presented in the sound booth at 0° azimuth under five test conditions: (1) right ear aided, (2) left ear aided, (3) both ears aided, (4) right ear aided, left ear plugged, and (5) unaided. The opposite ear in (1) and (2) was left open. In Experiment 2, binaural Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) manikin recordings made in Lou Malnati's pizza restaurant during a busy period provided a typical real-world noise, while prerecorded target sentences were presented through a small loudspeaker located in front of the KEMAR manikin. Subjects listened to the resulting binaural recordings through insert earphones under the following four conditions: (1) binaural, (2) diotic, (3) monaural left, and (4) monaural right. Results: Results of repeated measures ANOVAs demonstrated that the best speech recognition in noise performance was obtained by most participants with both ears aided in Experiment 1 and in the binaural condition in Experiment 2. Conclusions: In both experiments, only 20% of our subjects did better in noise with a single ear, roughly similar to the earlier Jerger et al (1993) finding that 8–10% of elderly hearing aid users preferred one hearing aid.

Predicted Gain and Functional Gain With Transcranial Routing of Signal Completely-in-the-Canal Hearing Aids

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc A. Fagelson ◽  
Colleen M. Noe ◽  
Owen D. Murnane ◽  
Jennifer S. Blevins
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Mechanical Vibration ◽  
Signal Frequency ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
External Canal ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Acoustic Output ◽  
Functional Gain

Transcranial routing of signal (TCROS) was accomplished using completely-in-the-canal (CIC) hearing aids in 5 profoundly unilaterally hearing-impaired individuals. The functional gain realized by the participants far exceeded the gain predicted by measuring the acoustic output and real ear aided response of the hearing aids. The difference between predicted and functional gain increased with signal frequency and was attributed at least in part to mechanical vibration of the hearing aid in the external canal. Implications for fitting unilateral hearing loss using TCROS amplifying systems are discussed.

scholarly journals An Evaluation of Hearing Aid Beamforming Microphone Arrays in a Noisy Laboratory Setting

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (02) ◽  
pp. 131-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin M. Picou ◽  
Todd A. Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Microphone Arrays ◽  
Laboratory Setting ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Sentence Recognition

AbstractPeople with hearing loss experience difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments. Beamforming microphone arrays in hearing aids can improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and thus also speech recognition and subjective ratings. Unilateral beamformer arrays, also known as directional microphones, accomplish this improvement using two microphones in one hearing aid. Bilateral beamformer arrays, which combine information across four microphones in a bilateral fitting, further improve the SNR. Early bilateral beamformers were static with fixed attenuation patterns. Recently adaptive, bilateral beamformers have been introduced in commercial hearing aids.The purpose of this article was to evaluate the potential benefits of adaptive unilateral and bilateral beamformers for improving sentence recognition and subjective ratings in a laboratory setting. A secondary purpose was to identify potential participant factors that explain some of the variability in beamformer benefit.Participants were fitted with study hearing aids equipped with commercially available adaptive unilateral and bilateral beamformers. Participants completed sentence recognition testing in background noise using three hearing aid settings (omnidirectional, unilateral beamformer, bilateral beamformer) and two noise source configurations (surround, side). After each condition, participants made subjective ratings of their perceived work, desire to control the situation, willingness to give up, and tiredness.Eighteen adults (50–80 yr, M = 66.2, σ = 8.6) with symmetrical mild sloping to severe hearing loss participated.Sentence recognition scores and subjective ratings were analyzed separately using generalized linear models with two within-subject factors (hearing aid microphone and noise configuration). Two benefit scores were calculated: (1) unilateral beamformer benefit (relative to performance with omnidirectional) and (2) additional bilateral beamformer benefit (relative to performance with unilateral beamformer). Hierarchical multiple linear regression was used to determine if beamformer benefit was associated with participant factors (age, degree of hearing loss, unaided speech in noise ability, spatial release from masking, and performance in omnidirectional).Sentence recognition and subjective ratings of work, control, and tiredness were better with both types of beamformers relative to the omnidirectional conditions. In addition, the bilateral beamformer offered small additional improvements relative to the unilateral beamformer in terms of sentence recognition and subjective ratings of tiredness. Speech recognition performance and subjective ratings were generally independent of noise configuration. Performance in the omnidirectional setting and pure-tone average were independently related to unilateral beamformer benefits. Those with the lowest performance or the largest degree of hearing loss benefited the most. No factors were significantly related to additional bilateral beamformer benefit.Adaptive bilateral beamformers offer additional advantages over adaptive unilateral beamformers in hearing aids. The small additional advantages with the adaptive beamformer are comparable to those reported in the literature with static beamformers. Although the additional benefits are small, they positively affected subjective ratings of tiredness. These data suggest that adaptive bilateral beamformers have the potential to improve listening in difficult situations for hearing aid users. In addition, patients who struggle the most without beamforming microphones may also benefit the most from the technology.

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Brody ◽  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Recognition Performance ◽  
Sound Quality ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Speech Intelligibility Index ◽  
Sound Amplification

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document