A Set of Time-and-Frequency-Localized Short-Duration Speech-Like Stimuli for Assessing Hearing-Aid Performance via Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potentials.
Michael A Stone, Anisa Visram, James M Harte and 1 others
PMID 31858885WHAT IT FOUND
New short synthetic sounds that mimic speech frequencies produced detectable cortical responses in two adults and were mostly preserved by four hearing aids.
They are not yet tested for checking hearing-aid fitting in patients.
Key findings
01Four new short-duration speech-like synthetic stimuli were designed to be more frequency-specific than other speech tokens used for cortical auditory responses.
02The new stimuli produced detected cortical responses in two adults; the mid-high stimulus in the young female at speech-relative level had p = .0021, while the other new-stimulus detections were reported at p < 1e-8.
03In the CAEP-like and visual reinforcement audiometry conditions, gain variation was similar to or less than running speech for all aids except the Phonak Nios mid-frequency visual reinforcement audiometry condition, where successive block means differed by 1.5, 2.3, and 0.5 dB.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The cortical response recordings involved two adults, not infants or children with hearing loss. The study did not test the stimuli in infants or children with hearing aids. The high-frequency stimulus was not tested with the hearing aids. For more severe hearing losses, the theoretical presentation levels may be too low if the hearing aid does not amplify the mean band level to audibility. One new stimulus at speech-relative level in the young female had p = .0021, while the other new-stimulus detections were reported at p < 1e-8. The hearing aid test used four aids, and the Phonak Nios showed adaptive gain decrease across visual reinforcement audiometry blocks. The paper reports stimulus design, cortical detection, and hearing aid output measures, but not patient speech perception or hearing-aid fitting outcomes. The claims about better frequency specificity and suitability are design rationales, not tested clinical outcomes.
Declared interests
The only conflicts statement names funding by NIHR Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB).
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that these stimuli improve hearing-aid fitting or speech perception. The cortical response recordings involved two adults, and the hearing aid processing tests involved four devices measured in a manikin, not patient fitting outcomes.