Behavioral Evaluation of 3 Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid Apps for Patients with Mild Hearing Loss: An Exploratory Pilot Study.

IF 1 4区医学 Q3 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY

Journal of International Advanced Otology Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.5152/iao.2022.21469

Miseung Koo, Willy Nguyen, Jun Ho Lee, Seung-Ha Oh, Moo Kyun Park

{"title":"Behavioral Evaluation of 3 Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid Apps for Patients with Mild Hearing Loss: An Exploratory Pilot Study.","authors":"Miseung Koo, Willy Nguyen, Jun Ho Lee, Seung-Ha Oh, Moo Kyun Park","doi":"10.5152/iao.2022.21469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the behavioral performance of a selection of currently available hearing aid apps in patients with mild hearing loss.Methods: We investigated 3 user-friendly hearing aid apps (EarMachine, Sound Amplifier, and Petralex) with real-ear measurement, warbletone audiometry, word recognition testing in unaided and aided conditions, and hearing-in-noise tests 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: Hearing aids showed greater gain at 1 and 3 kHz than hearing aid apps in real-ear insertion gain of real-ear measurements. Hearing aids tended to have greater gain than hearing aid apps at 2 and 3 kHz in the sound field audiometry test. The clinical performance of the listeners tended to be better when using a hearing aid and Petralex (13% and 6% improvement in word recognition score, respectively), while EarMachine and Sound Amplifier conferred limited user benefit. The hearing aid apps did not improve signal-to-noise ratio in comparison with the unaided condition in the hearing-in-noise test.Conclusions: Some hearing aid apps were beneficial for patients with mild hearing loss in terms of amplification, but participants using the apps showed no improvements in hearing-in-noise tests.","PeriodicalId":54793,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Advanced Otology","volume":"18 5","pages":"399-404"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3a/f0/jiao-18-5-399.PMC9524353.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Advanced Otology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2022.21469","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the behavioral performance of a selection of currently available hearing aid apps in patients with mild hearing loss.

Methods: We investigated 3 user-friendly hearing aid apps (EarMachine, Sound Amplifier, and Petralex) with real-ear measurement, warbletone audiometry, word recognition testing in unaided and aided conditions, and hearing-in-noise tests 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: Hearing aids showed greater gain at 1 and 3 kHz than hearing aid apps in real-ear insertion gain of real-ear measurements. Hearing aids tended to have greater gain than hearing aid apps at 2 and 3 kHz in the sound field audiometry test. The clinical performance of the listeners tended to be better when using a hearing aid and Petralex (13% and 6% improvement in word recognition score, respectively), while EarMachine and Sound Amplifier conferred limited user benefit. The hearing aid apps did not improve signal-to-noise ratio in comparison with the unaided condition in the hearing-in-noise test.

Conclusions: Some hearing aid apps were beneficial for patients with mild hearing loss in terms of amplification, but participants using the apps showed no improvements in hearing-in-noise tests.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

3款基于智能手机的助听器应用程序对轻度听力损失患者的行为评估:一项探索性试点研究

背景:本研究的目的是评估一些目前可用的助听器应用程序在轻度听力损失患者中的行为表现。方法:我们对3款用户友好型助听器应用(EarMachine、Sound Amplifier和Petralex)进行了实耳测量、warbletone测听、无辅助和辅助条件下的单词识别测试，以及安静和噪声前条件下的噪音听力测试，对7名轻度听力障碍用户进行了调查，作为未来长期调查的试点。这些应用程序的结果与传统助听器的结果进行了比较。结果:助听器在1 kHz和3 kHz时的实耳插入增益高于助听器应用。在声场测听测试中，助听器往往比助听器应用在2 kHz和3 kHz时获得更大的增益。当使用助听器和Petralex时，听者的临床表现往往更好(分别提高13%和6%的单词识别分数)，而EarMachine和Sound Amplifier给用户带来的好处有限。在噪音听力测试中，与没有辅助的情况相比，助听器应用程序并没有提高信噪比。结论:一些助听器应用程序在放大方面对轻度听力损失患者有益，但使用这些应用程序的参与者在噪音听力测试中没有显示出改善。

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

Journal of International Advanced Otology OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY-

CiteScore

1.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of International Advanced Otology (IAO – Citation Abbreviation: J Int Adv Otol) is an open access double-blind peer-reviewed, international publication. The Journal of International Advanced Otology is fully sponsored and owned by the European Academy of Otology and Neurotology and the Politzer Society. The Journal of International Advanced Otology is published 3 times per year on April, August, December and its publication language is English. The scope of the Journal is limited with otology, neurotology, audiology (excluding linguistics) and skull base medicine. The Journal of International Advanced Otology aims to publish manuscripts at the highest clinical and scientific level. IAO publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research, review articles, short reports and a limited number of case reports. Controversial patient discussions, communications on emerging technology, and historical issues will also be considered for publication.