A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits

Vernon D. Larson, David W. Williams, William G. Henderson, Lynn E. Luethke, Lucille B. Beck, Douglas Noffsinger, Gene W. Bratt, Robert A Dobie, Stephen A. Fausti, George B. Haskell, Bruce Z. Rappaport, Janet E. Shanks, Richard H. Wilson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Although numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit, carefully controlled, multi-center clinical trials have not been conducted. A multi-center clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of three commonly used hearing aid circuits: peak clipping, compression limiting, and wide dynamic range compression. Design: Patients (N = 360) with bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss were studied using a double blind, three-period, three-treatment crossover design. The patients were fit with each of three programmable hearing aid circuits. Outcome tests were administered in the unaided condition at baseline and then after 3 mo usage of each circuit, the tests were administered in both aided and unaided conditions. The outcome test battery included tests of speech recognition, sound quality and subjective scales of hearing aid benefit, including patients' overall rank-order rating of the three circuits. Results: Each hearing aid circuit improved speech recognition markedly, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech in both quiet and noisy listening conditions. In addition, a significant reduction in the problems encountered in communication was observed. Some tests suggested that the two compression hearing aids provided a better listening experience than the peak clipping hearing aid. In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the compression limiting hearing aid more frequently than the other two hearing aids. Conclusions: The three hearing aid circuits studied provide significant benefit both in quiet and in noisy listening situations. The two compression hearing aids appear to provide superior benefits compared to the linear circuit, although the differences between the hearing aids were smaller than the differences between unaided and aided conditions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)269-276
Number of pages8
JournalEar and Hearing
Volume23
Issue number4
StatePublished - Aug 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Hearing Aids
Clinical Trials
Bilateral Hearing Loss
Phonetics
Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Cross-Over Studies
Communication

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Larson, V. D., Williams, D. W., Henderson, W. G., Luethke, L. E., Beck, L. B., Noffsinger, D., ... Wilson, R. H. (2002). A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits. Ear and Hearing, 23(4), 269-276.

A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits. / Larson, Vernon D.; Williams, David W.; Henderson, William G.; Luethke, Lynn E.; Beck, Lucille B.; Noffsinger, Douglas; Bratt, Gene W.; Dobie, Robert A; Fausti, Stephen A.; Haskell, George B.; Rappaport, Bruce Z.; Shanks, Janet E.; Wilson, Richard H.

In: Ear and Hearing, Vol. 23, No. 4, 08.2002, p. 269-276.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Larson, VD, Williams, DW, Henderson, WG, Luethke, LE, Beck, LB, Noffsinger, D, Bratt, GW, Dobie, RA, Fausti, SA, Haskell, GB, Rappaport, BZ, Shanks, JE & Wilson, RH 2002, 'A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits', Ear and Hearing, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 269-276.
Larson VD, Williams DW, Henderson WG, Luethke LE, Beck LB, Noffsinger D et al. A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits. Ear and Hearing. 2002 Aug;23(4):269-276.
Larson, Vernon D. ; Williams, David W. ; Henderson, William G. ; Luethke, Lynn E. ; Beck, Lucille B. ; Noffsinger, Douglas ; Bratt, Gene W. ; Dobie, Robert A ; Fausti, Stephen A. ; Haskell, George B. ; Rappaport, Bruce Z. ; Shanks, Janet E. ; Wilson, Richard H. / A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits. In: Ear and Hearing. 2002 ; Vol. 23, No. 4. pp. 269-276.
@article{82a825960b79490c989d5f4fc602c29d,
title = "A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits",
abstract = "Objective: Although numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit, carefully controlled, multi-center clinical trials have not been conducted. A multi-center clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of three commonly used hearing aid circuits: peak clipping, compression limiting, and wide dynamic range compression. Design: Patients (N = 360) with bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss were studied using a double blind, three-period, three-treatment crossover design. The patients were fit with each of three programmable hearing aid circuits. Outcome tests were administered in the unaided condition at baseline and then after 3 mo usage of each circuit, the tests were administered in both aided and unaided conditions. The outcome test battery included tests of speech recognition, sound quality and subjective scales of hearing aid benefit, including patients' overall rank-order rating of the three circuits. Results: Each hearing aid circuit improved speech recognition markedly, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech in both quiet and noisy listening conditions. In addition, a significant reduction in the problems encountered in communication was observed. Some tests suggested that the two compression hearing aids provided a better listening experience than the peak clipping hearing aid. In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the compression limiting hearing aid more frequently than the other two hearing aids. Conclusions: The three hearing aid circuits studied provide significant benefit both in quiet and in noisy listening situations. The two compression hearing aids appear to provide superior benefits compared to the linear circuit, although the differences between the hearing aids were smaller than the differences between unaided and aided conditions.",
author = "Larson, {Vernon D.} and Williams, {David W.} and Henderson, {William G.} and Luethke, {Lynn E.} and Beck, {Lucille B.} and Douglas Noffsinger and Bratt, {Gene W.} and Dobie, {Robert A} and Fausti, {Stephen A.} and Haskell, {George B.} and Rappaport, {Bruce Z.} and Shanks, {Janet E.} and Wilson, {Richard H.}",
year = "2002",
month = "8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "269--276",
journal = "Ear and Hearing",
issn = "0196-0202",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A multi-center, double blind clinical trial comparing benefit from three commonly used hearing aid circuits

AU - Larson, Vernon D.

AU - Williams, David W.

AU - Henderson, William G.

AU - Luethke, Lynn E.

AU - Beck, Lucille B.

AU - Noffsinger, Douglas

AU - Bratt, Gene W.

AU - Dobie, Robert A

AU - Fausti, Stephen A.

AU - Haskell, George B.

AU - Rappaport, Bruce Z.

AU - Shanks, Janet E.

AU - Wilson, Richard H.

PY - 2002/8

Y1 - 2002/8

N2 - Objective: Although numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit, carefully controlled, multi-center clinical trials have not been conducted. A multi-center clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of three commonly used hearing aid circuits: peak clipping, compression limiting, and wide dynamic range compression. Design: Patients (N = 360) with bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss were studied using a double blind, three-period, three-treatment crossover design. The patients were fit with each of three programmable hearing aid circuits. Outcome tests were administered in the unaided condition at baseline and then after 3 mo usage of each circuit, the tests were administered in both aided and unaided conditions. The outcome test battery included tests of speech recognition, sound quality and subjective scales of hearing aid benefit, including patients' overall rank-order rating of the three circuits. Results: Each hearing aid circuit improved speech recognition markedly, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech in both quiet and noisy listening conditions. In addition, a significant reduction in the problems encountered in communication was observed. Some tests suggested that the two compression hearing aids provided a better listening experience than the peak clipping hearing aid. In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the compression limiting hearing aid more frequently than the other two hearing aids. Conclusions: The three hearing aid circuits studied provide significant benefit both in quiet and in noisy listening situations. The two compression hearing aids appear to provide superior benefits compared to the linear circuit, although the differences between the hearing aids were smaller than the differences between unaided and aided conditions.

AB - Objective: Although numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit, carefully controlled, multi-center clinical trials have not been conducted. A multi-center clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of three commonly used hearing aid circuits: peak clipping, compression limiting, and wide dynamic range compression. Design: Patients (N = 360) with bilateral, sensorineural hearing loss were studied using a double blind, three-period, three-treatment crossover design. The patients were fit with each of three programmable hearing aid circuits. Outcome tests were administered in the unaided condition at baseline and then after 3 mo usage of each circuit, the tests were administered in both aided and unaided conditions. The outcome test battery included tests of speech recognition, sound quality and subjective scales of hearing aid benefit, including patients' overall rank-order rating of the three circuits. Results: Each hearing aid circuit improved speech recognition markedly, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech in both quiet and noisy listening conditions. In addition, a significant reduction in the problems encountered in communication was observed. Some tests suggested that the two compression hearing aids provided a better listening experience than the peak clipping hearing aid. In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the compression limiting hearing aid more frequently than the other two hearing aids. Conclusions: The three hearing aid circuits studied provide significant benefit both in quiet and in noisy listening situations. The two compression hearing aids appear to provide superior benefits compared to the linear circuit, although the differences between the hearing aids were smaller than the differences between unaided and aided conditions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036674856&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036674856&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12195168

AN - SCOPUS:0036674856

VL - 23

SP - 269

EP - 276

JO - Ear and Hearing

JF - Ear and Hearing

SN - 0196-0202

IS - 4

ER -