SLPOtherTrends in hearing2018

Objective Prediction of Hearing Aid Benefit Across Listener Groups Using Machine Learning: Speech Recognition Performance With Binaural Noise-Reduction Algorithms.

Marc R Schädler, Anna Warzybok, Birger Kollmeier

PMID 29692200

WHAT IT FOUND

A model that predicts hearing aid benefit from speech-in-noise scores tracked group results in cafeteria noise, but it did not reliably predict individual benefit from audiograms alone.

Key findings

01Predicted group speech reception thresholds were significantly correlated with measured thresholds in the 20-talker babble and cafeteria ambient noise conditions, but not in the single interfering talker condition.

02In cafeteria ambient noise, group predictions explained 92% of variance for normal-hearing listeners and 83% for impaired-hearing listeners.

03Individual benefit predictions for impaired-hearing listeners explained less than 25% of variance, with root-mean-square prediction errors more than 2.4 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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The model was tested against measurements from one previous study, not against a new clinical sample. It was evaluated mainly with the German matrix sentence test, not with other speech tests. The single interfering talker condition was not suitable for prediction. Individual predictions for impaired-hearing listeners were based only on audiograms and did not capture all individual factors. The predictions generally underestimated measured performance, so absolute thresholds were biased. The comparison used 10 normal-hearing listeners and 12 aided impaired-hearing listeners, so it was not a large clinical trial.

The easy way to misread this

Do not use this model to choose a hearing aid noise-reduction setting for an individual patient. It predicted group benefit, but individual benefit predictions based only on audiograms were weak.

Read it on PubMed →