International Journal of Audiology最新文献

{"title":"Test-retest reliability and agreement of ear-canal and mastoid Wave I Auditory Brainstem Responses in healthy young adults.","authors":"Blandine Duval, Jamal Yahiaoui, Francesca Rapido, Laura Breda, Charles Vincent, Cécile Nicoud, Hugo Vanacker, Léa Fougaera-Lempereur, Zoe Kaier-Green, Jérôme Geoffroy, Mathieu Schue, Stéphane Perrey, Grégoire Vergotte, Hugo Laullier","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2026.2743351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2026.2743351","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study evaluated the test-retest reliability of Wave I amplitude and latency and examined sources of variability, including head size, cardiac, respiratory parameters and tester effects. Wave I amplitude, a proposed biomarker of cochlear synaptopathy, requires established reproducibility.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Thirty participants attended up to four sessions two weeks apart. Click-evoked ABRs were recorded at 80 dB nHL from ear-canal and mastoid electrodes, with ECG monitoring: three sessions by one tester, one by another.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>Adults aged 18-25 years (19 women) with normal audiometric thresholds (Pure-Tone Average 500-4000 Hz < 20 dB HL) and normal speech-in-noise performance (signal-to-noise ratio [SNR] < -3 dB).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An SNR-based quality threshold retained >80% of recordings. Reproducibility was higher for Ear-canal than Mastoid recordings (ICC [intraclass correlation coefficient] = 0.80 [95% CI: 0.61-0.88] vs. 0.77 [0.57-0.84]; CV [coefficient of variation] 12-14%). Latency showed excellent agreement (CV 2-3%). Adjusting amplitude for head size and residual noise reduced the central 95% range by 18%, although the distribution remained wide. Tester variance remained below residual within-ear variance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Wave I measures show good within-individual reproducibility, supporting longitudinal monitoring. Tester variance was not the dominant source of variability, and the SNR threshold and normalisation approach provide actionable tools for multi-tester studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2026-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149193240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The hearing healthcare workforce: insights into density, distribution and opportunities for capacity-development.","authors":"Lilian Mokoh, Shen Hong Law, Ali Jaffer, Amina Seguya, Aveline Kahinga, Doreen Nakku, Elizabeth A L Holt, Lauren K Dillard, Nader Zalaquett, Robert Frost, Rolvix H Patterson, Sarah Nuss, Mary Jue Xu, Zachary Elwell, Christopher J Waterworth","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2026.2738096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2026.2738096","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Hearing loss is a major global health concern, yet many countries lack the necessary workforce to provide hearing care services. This study aimed to evaluate the global distribution, availability, and training of hearing healthcare providers, including audiologists and other professionals involved in hearing care.</p><p><strong>Design and study sample: </strong>A cross-sectional electronic survey was conducted from June 2022 to March 2024 by the Global Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Initiative, collecting national-level data from 93 countries representing 77 percent of the world's population. Responses were analysed by income classification and geographic region based on World Bank and World Health Organization categories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The global density of audiologists was 1.48 per 100,000 people, with more than 70 percent of countries reporting fewer than one audiologist per 100,000. The overall hearing healthcare workforce density was 4.1 per 100,000 population. Training opportunities were limited in low-income countries, where 83 percent of audiologists were trained outside their home country. The African, Eastern Mediterranean, and South-East Asian regions were especially underserved. Workforce roles and service scope varied widely across regions and income levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings highlight critical disparities and emphasise the need for targeted workforce planning and sustainable training programs to improve global hearing care.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2026-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149165312","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A device-independent approach to cochlear-implant telehealth.","authors":"Joshua G W Bernstein, Elicia M Pillion, Sandeep A Phatak, Anthony M Tolisano","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2026.2731750","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2026.2731750","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Commercial cochlear-implant (CI) telehealth is manufacturer-specific and generally does not replicate standard sound-field tests. This study developed and tested a manufacturer-independent CI telehealth system designed to replace a standard clinic visit.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The system comprised a laptop, a sound card, headphones (placed over the CI sound processor), manufacturer's programming software and cables, and custom software for aided speech-recognition and warble-tone detection-threshold assessment. Phase 1 compared telehealth-system aided assessment to standard sound-field testing. In Phase 2, participants completed at-home remote audiological follow-up visits.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>N = 15 (Phase 1) and N = 13 (Phase 2) adult CI users.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean absolute differences between telehealth-system and sound-field warble-tone detection thresholds were 5 dB, with 96% of 0.5-4 kHz telehealth-system thresholds within the sound-field 95% confidence interval (95ci). Consonant-nucleus-consonant word and AzBio sentence identification in quiet showed no significant differences between modes, with high intraclass correlations (ICC = 0.94-0.97) and 80-93% of telehealth-system scores within the sound-field 95ci. Bamford-Kowal-Bench sentence-in-noise scores showed larger deviations. Telehealth-survey responses indicated high patient satisfaction, improved convenience and access to care, and only minor challenges.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Combining a manufacturer-independent headphones-based alternative to sound-field testing with manufacturer's programming software in a remotely controlled laptop system replicates sound-field outcome scores and produces high patient satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149136493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Spatial AI improves speech intelligibility for hearing aid wearers in challenging multitalker noise.","authors":"Cole Morris, Igor Lovchinsky, Christina Callahan, Nathan Agmon, David Pattinson, Kaitlyn Lyngaas, Israel Malkin, William Shapiro, Mario Svirsky","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2026.2741760","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2026.2741760","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We evaluated the Spatial AI model on the Fortell AI hearing aids to see if it improves speech intelligibility in single-azimuth multitalker babble relative to a commercially available control hearing aid employing neural-network-based noise-reduction.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>In a pre-registered, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, hearing aid users completed a QuickSIN test wearing the Fortell and control devices. Both devices were set to maximise directionality and noise reduction. Objective metrics were also calculated.</p><p><strong>Sample: </strong>Thirty adults with mild to moderately-severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The investigational hearing aid showed significant improvements in speech intelligibility, with odds ratios of 6.0, 10.6 and 18.9 across SNRs of +6, 0, and -6 dB (all <i>p</i> ≪ 0.0001). The SNR-50 improved by 9.2 dB and all participants identified more words correctly using the investigational device. Lab measurements showed an SNR improvement over unaided of 2.3 dB with the control device and 15.5 dB with the investigational hearing aid. HASPI v2 showed a similar level of SNR improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Spatial AI yields substantial intelligibility benefits in a controlled single-azimuth multitalker configuration. The effect sizes greatly exceeded established thresholds for clinical significance, suggesting that the algorithm may help address the cocktail party problem for hearing-impaired listeners.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149136461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Towards the development of a core outcome domain set for remote cochlear implant management.","authors":"David Allen, Cathy Sucher, Emma Laird, Isabelle Boisvert, Melanie Ferguson","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2026.2702202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2026.2702202","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Remote technologies for cochlear implant (CI) service provision promises to increase access to personalised, efficient, effective, and equitable CI services. Evaluating remote services using relevant outcome measures improves evidence available to make informed decisions about patient care. The objective of this study was to identify a core outcome domain set (CODS) for remote CI services.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A three-round two-group online crossover Delphi review. Participants rated, and in the final round, ranked outcome domains (n = 57) in three supra-domains previously identified by a systematic review and three online workshops. The study is registered on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials website.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>CI users (n = 114) and professionals (n = 77) from Australia, the UK, and the USA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Domains identified across both groups were: Usability, Reliability, and Accessibility of the remote service to the client (Service supra-domain); Device Integrity and Status, Speech Discrimination, and Device Use (Clinical supra-domain); and Participation Restriction, Hearing-Related Quality of Life, Client Device Satisfaction, and Mental Health and Wellbeing (Patient supra-domain).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The substantial mismatch between the ranking of Clinical and Patient outcome domains between CI users and professionals suggests important differences in perspectives. Mutual education is essential to ensure needs are mutually understood and met.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2026-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149127363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Hearing-aid outcomes in adults with subjective listening difficulties in noise despite normal audiograms.","authors":"Joon Shin, Harvey Dillon","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2026.2740323","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2026.2740323","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate whether hearing aids improve speech recognition in noise and self-reported listening outcomes in clinically heterogeneous adults with subjective listening difficulties in noise.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective, uncontrolled, within-subject intervention study. Participants completed multidimensional baseline testing followed by an 8-week hearing-aid trial assessing speech-in-noise performance, listening effort, self-report outcomes, and individualised benefit.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>Sixteen native Australian English-speaking adults aged 18-60 (mean 39.8 ± 11.1) years with near normal hearing sensitivity and substantial self-reported listening difficulties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At baseline, participants had normal audiological results but heterogeneous auditory-processing profiles, with the most consistent deficits on speech-in-noise measures. Speech Reception Thresholds in noise with hearing aids (-14.2 ± 2.2 dB SNR) were significantly better than unaided (-11.4 ± 1.6 dB SNR), showing a 2.8 dB improvement (95% CI: 2.1-3.4), t (15) = 8.8, p<.001. Unaided performance explained 69.2% of aided performance variance, indicating a consistent relationship with some individual variability. Although aided benefit varied across participants, the present data did not permit reliable separation of measurement variability from true differences in treatment response. Self-report measures demonstrated reduced hearing handicap, improved perceived listening ability, and favourable hearing-aid use and satisfaction. Unaided spatialised-noise test scores did not change.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Hearing aids were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in speech-in-noise performance in adults with subjective listening difficulties and heterogeneous auditory-processing profiles. Apparent variability in aided benefit should be interpreted cautiously, as it likely reflects both measurement variability and true inter-participant differences. The broad consistency in benefit was observed despite marked differences in participants' baseline characteristics across multiple dimensions.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2026-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149109121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of auditory perception between behavioural and objective MAPs in cochlear implant users: a systematic review.","authors":"Sandra Fortin, François Bergeron, Christine Turgeon","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2026.2738095","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2026.2738095","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024573626) explores whether objective MAPs result in better auditory perception than behavioural MAPs in cochlear implant (CI) users.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and Google Scholar were last searched in January 2026. English or French peer-reviewed full-length published articles comparing auditory perception between behavioural and objective MAPs in CI users were included. Their quality and level of evidence were independently assessed by two reviewers with the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>Twenty-six heterogeneous low-level studies were included (495 CI users).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most studies used non-validated tools and were non-double-blinded, imprecise and indirect. Four objective measures were used to guide fitting. The two main objective measures were the electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) thresholds and the electrically evoked stapedial reflex thresholds (eSRTs). ESRT-guided MAPs tended to yield significantly better auditory perception than behavioural MAPs in children, individuals with prelingual hearing loss, and short-term experienced CI users.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Further larger double-blinded high-level studies are needed to confirm the apparent efficacy of objective measures, particularly eSRTs, to guide fitting.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149109192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Low-gain hearing aids for individuals with normal hearing thresholds: a scoping review of listening-related outcomes.","authors":"Wayne J Wilson, Helen Gurteen","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2026.2735516","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2026.2735516","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Listening difficulties (LiD) can occur despite normal hearing thresholds, affecting speech understanding in complex environments and increasing listening effort. Audiologists have increasingly considered hearing aids for this population despite supporting evidence remaining unclear. This scoping review examined whether amplification should be used in individuals with normal hearing thresholds with or without LiD.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, 67 studies were reviewed: 14 involving adults and/or children with normal hearing thresholds with LiD and 54 involving adults with normal hearing thresholds without LiD. All studies assessed at least one listening-related outcome in aided versus unaided conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For adults and children with LiD, amplification was predominantly associated with improvements in subjective outcomes but variable effects on speech perception. Benefits were greatest when signal-processing features improved signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio. In contrast, adults without LiD showed predominantly mixed or no benefit from amplification, with some evidence of poorer subjective outcomes and speech perception.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Amplification could provide functional benefit for adults and children with normal hearing thresholds with LiD, particularly when targeting SNR rather than audibility. However, it is less likely to benefit - and could impair - performance in adults with normal hearing thresholds without LiD.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149109118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effect of selected components of aural rehabilitation delivered in-person versus guided internet-based modalities on quality of life in adults with hearing loss: a systematic review and meta-analyses.","authors":"Gudambe Nellithaya Spoorthi, Usha Shastri, Kaushlendra Kumar, Mohan Kumar Kalaiah, Kavassery Venkateswaran Nisha, Nitya Sridhar","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2026.2729217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2026.2729217","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effects of specific components of aural rehabilitation delivered in-person and guided internet-based modalities on the quality of life (QoL) of adults with acquired hearing loss.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Articles published up to August 2025 in scientific databases- PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. A search strategy was built using terms associated with aural rehabilitation, offline, online, internet, tele-audiology, hearing loss, and adults and was tailored to the subject headings and syntax of each database.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>Among the 6,646 studies retrieved, 49 met the inclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This systematic review included 49 studies, 12 of which were included in the meta-analyses. In-person aural rehabilitation showed a medium effect size, while internet-based aural rehabilitation showed a small but statistically significant improvement in hearing-related QoL measures. In terms of health-related QoL, only internet-based but not in-person aural rehabilitation had a small statistically significant improvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings indicate that adults with hearing loss benefit from both in-person and internet-based aural rehabilitation regarding hearing-related QoL outcomes. More investigations are needed to understand the effectiveness of particular components of aural rehabilitation in improving the health-related QoL of adults with hearing loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149074586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Measuring empowerment with the EmpAQ-15 and EmpAQ-5: test-retest reliability and responsiveness in a clinical population.","authors":"Rebecca J Bennett, Paola Incerti, Josefina Larsson, Gitte Engelund, Ellen Bothe, Melanie A Ferguson","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2026.2732708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2026.2732708","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the 15-item and 5-item forms of the Empowerment in Audiology Questionnaire (EmpAQ measures).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>In Study A, participants completed the EmpAQ-15 and the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory-Screening version (RHHI-S) twice, 3-4 weeks apart. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots. In Study B, participants completed the EmpAQ-15 and RHHI-S at baseline (pre-hearing aid fitting) and three and six months post-hearing aid fitting. Responsiveness was assessed using distribution-based, anchor-based, and measurement error-based approaches. We derived EmpAQ-5 from the EmpAQ-15 dataset and analysed it similarly.</p><p><strong>Study sample: </strong>Study A, <i>n</i> = 53 adults with hearing difficulties. Study B, <i>n</i> = 51 hearing aid-naïve adults with hearing difficulties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EmpAQ-15 and EmpAQ-5 demonstrated moderate test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.72 and 0.74 respectively), comparable to the RHHI-S (ICC = 0.77). Following hearing aid fitting, EmpAQ scores increased significantly at 3 months (mean change +9.29 and +10.60; SRM = 0.50 and 0.53). Approximately 21-23% exceeded MDC95 thresholds, indicating individual-level change beyond measurement error. Improvements were maintained at 6 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EmpAQ-15 and EmpAQ-5 are reliable and responsive measures that capture empowerment changes following hearing aid fitting and complement traditional evaluation tools in contemporary audiological care.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149024766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}