Evaluation of Communication Outcomes With Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Grace Szatkowski, Pamela Elizabeth Souza
{"title":"Evaluation of Communication Outcomes With Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids.","authors":"Grace Szatkowski, Pamela Elizabeth Souza","doi":"10.1097/AUD.0000000000001608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids are a treatment option for adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Previous investigations demonstrated the benefits of OTC hearing aids, primarily self-fit OTCs (i.e., self-adjustable with a smartphone or tablet), on self-reported hearing aid benefit and speech recognition using standardized measures. However, less is known regarding whether OTC hearing aids effectively improve aspects of everyday communication, particularly with preprogrammed OTCs (i.e., OTCs with manufacturer-defined programs). The goal of this study was to evaluate the benefits of preprogrammed OTC hearing aids for two important aspects of communication: (1) conversation efficiency, or the time taken during conversations with a familiar communication partner (e.g., one's spouse) and (2) auditory recall following speech recognition, a critical aspect of participation during conversations.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study used a within-subject design with thirty adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss and their familiar communication partners. Participants were fitted with preprogrammed OTC hearing aids using the default program with the best match to target for each listener. The primary outcome measures were conversation efficiency and auditory recall. Speech recognition-in-noise served as a secondary measure. Conversation efficiency was evaluated using the DiapixUK task, a \"spot-the-difference\" conversation task in quiet, and measured as the sum of time taken to correctly identify differences between two similar pictures. Within-subject comparisons were made for hearing aid condition (without and with OTC hearing aids in the default setting). Auditory recall was assessed with the Repeat and Recall Test following speech recognition-in-noise with low- and high-context sentence presentations at 5- and 10-dB signal to noise ratios. In addition to the mentioned hearing aid conditions, an additional comparison was made with the OTC hearing aid noise-reduction program. Linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate the effect of OTC hearing aid use on primary measures of efficiency and recall. Friedman signed-rank test was used to evaluate speech recognition scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We did not find a significant improvement in conversation efficiency with OTC hearing aid use compared with the unaided condition. For auditory recall, we observed the poorest median recall scores with the default program and the best median scores with the noise-reduction program, although neither observation was statistically significant. Sentence recognition scores were near ceiling in the unaided condition and were poorest with use of the OTC hearing aids in the default program across most signal to noise ratio and context test conditions. Our findings did not show improvements in communication outcomes with OTC hearing aid use. Small to medium effect sizes for our data may be indicative of the limitations of the OTC hearing aids to improve communication outcomes for our sampled population and communication scenarios.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this study provide insights into the effects of OTC hearing aids on communication abilities at first fitting. We identified features of preprogrammed OTC hearing aids that may be limiting potential communication benefits among listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Future investigations that compare communication outcomes across various types of OTC hearing aids may provide valuable insights for identifying the most suitable recipients for specific OTC hearing aid models.</p>","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ear and Hearing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001608","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids are a treatment option for adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Previous investigations demonstrated the benefits of OTC hearing aids, primarily self-fit OTCs (i.e., self-adjustable with a smartphone or tablet), on self-reported hearing aid benefit and speech recognition using standardized measures. However, less is known regarding whether OTC hearing aids effectively improve aspects of everyday communication, particularly with preprogrammed OTCs (i.e., OTCs with manufacturer-defined programs). The goal of this study was to evaluate the benefits of preprogrammed OTC hearing aids for two important aspects of communication: (1) conversation efficiency, or the time taken during conversations with a familiar communication partner (e.g., one's spouse) and (2) auditory recall following speech recognition, a critical aspect of participation during conversations.

Design: This study used a within-subject design with thirty adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss and their familiar communication partners. Participants were fitted with preprogrammed OTC hearing aids using the default program with the best match to target for each listener. The primary outcome measures were conversation efficiency and auditory recall. Speech recognition-in-noise served as a secondary measure. Conversation efficiency was evaluated using the DiapixUK task, a "spot-the-difference" conversation task in quiet, and measured as the sum of time taken to correctly identify differences between two similar pictures. Within-subject comparisons were made for hearing aid condition (without and with OTC hearing aids in the default setting). Auditory recall was assessed with the Repeat and Recall Test following speech recognition-in-noise with low- and high-context sentence presentations at 5- and 10-dB signal to noise ratios. In addition to the mentioned hearing aid conditions, an additional comparison was made with the OTC hearing aid noise-reduction program. Linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate the effect of OTC hearing aid use on primary measures of efficiency and recall. Friedman signed-rank test was used to evaluate speech recognition scores.

Results: We did not find a significant improvement in conversation efficiency with OTC hearing aid use compared with the unaided condition. For auditory recall, we observed the poorest median recall scores with the default program and the best median scores with the noise-reduction program, although neither observation was statistically significant. Sentence recognition scores were near ceiling in the unaided condition and were poorest with use of the OTC hearing aids in the default program across most signal to noise ratio and context test conditions. Our findings did not show improvements in communication outcomes with OTC hearing aid use. Small to medium effect sizes for our data may be indicative of the limitations of the OTC hearing aids to improve communication outcomes for our sampled population and communication scenarios.

Conclusions: The results of this study provide insights into the effects of OTC hearing aids on communication abilities at first fitting. We identified features of preprogrammed OTC hearing aids that may be limiting potential communication benefits among listeners with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Future investigations that compare communication outcomes across various types of OTC hearing aids may provide valuable insights for identifying the most suitable recipients for specific OTC hearing aid models.

非处方助听器的沟通效果评估。
目的:非处方(OTC)助听器是成人轻度至中度听力损失的治疗选择。先前的调查表明,非处方助听器的好处,主要是自适应的非处方助听器(即智能手机或平板电脑的自我调节),在自我报告的助听器效益和语音识别方面使用标准化的措施。然而,对于非处方助听器是否有效地改善日常交流方面,特别是预先编程的非处方助听器(即具有制造商定义程序的非处方助听器),人们知之甚少。本研究的目的是评估预编程的OTC助听器在沟通的两个重要方面的好处:(1)对话效率,或与熟悉的沟通伙伴(例如,配偶)交谈时所花费的时间;(2)语音识别后的听觉回忆,这是参与对话的关键方面。设计:本研究采用主题内设计,有30名轻度至中度听力损失的成年人和他们熟悉的交流伙伴。参与者配备了预先编程的OTC助听器,使用默认程序,为每个听者提供最佳匹配目标。主要结果测量是对话效率和听觉回忆。噪音中的语音识别是第二项措施。对话效率是用DiapixUK任务来评估的,这是一个在安静环境下“发现差异”的对话任务,并以正确识别两张相似图片之间差异所花费的时间总和来衡量。对助听器情况进行受试者内比较(默认设置下不使用OTC助听器和使用OTC助听器)。以5分贝和10分贝的信噪比对低语境和高语境句子进行语音识别后的重复和回忆测试来评估听觉回忆。除了上述助听器条件外,还与OTC助听器降噪计划进行了额外的比较。使用线性混合效应模型来评估非处方助听器使用对效率和召回的主要措施的影响。语音识别评分采用Friedman sign -rank检验。结果:与未使用助听器的情况相比,我们没有发现使用OTC助听器的谈话效率有显著提高。对于听觉回忆,我们观察到默认程序的中位数回忆得分最低,而降噪程序的中位数回忆得分最高,尽管这两个观察结果都没有统计学意义。句子识别分数在无辅助条件下接近上限,在默认程序中使用OTC助听器在大多数信噪比和上下文测试条件下是最差的。我们的研究结果并没有显示使用非处方助听器对沟通结果的改善。我们数据的小到中等效应大小可能表明非处方助听器在改善我们的样本人群和交流场景的交流结果方面存在局限性。结论:本研究结果揭示了非处方助听器对初次配戴时沟通能力的影响。我们确定了预编程OTC助听器的特征,这些特征可能限制了轻度至中度听力损失的听者之间潜在的沟通益处。未来的研究将比较不同类型的OTC助听器的交流结果,这将为确定最适合特定OTC助听器型号的接受者提供有价值的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ear and Hearing
Ear and Hearing 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
10.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: From the basic science of hearing and balance disorders to auditory electrophysiology to amplification and the psychological factors of hearing loss, Ear and Hearing covers all aspects of auditory and vestibular disorders. This multidisciplinary journal consolidates the various factors that contribute to identification, remediation, and audiologic and vestibular rehabilitation. It is the one journal that serves the diverse interest of all members of this professional community -- otologists, audiologists, educators, and to those involved in the design, manufacture, and distribution of amplification systems. The original articles published in the journal focus on assessment, diagnosis, and management of auditory and vestibular disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信