Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits

A crossover trial

Vernon D. Larson, David W. Williams, William G. Henderson, Lynn E. Luethke, Lucille B. Beck, Douglas Noffsinger, Richard H. Wilson, Robert A. Dobie, George B. Haskell, Gene W. Bratt, Janet E. Shanks, Patricia G Stelmachowicz, Gerald A. Studebaker, Allen E. Boysen, Amy Donahue, Rinaldo Canalis, Stephen A. Fausti, Bruce Z. Rappaport

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

78 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: Numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit for a wide range of sensorineural hearing loss, but no carefully controlled, multicenter clinical trials comparing hearing aid efficacy have been conducted. Objective: To compare the benefits provided to patients with sensorineural hearing loss by 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits. Design: Double-blind, 3-period, 3-treatment crossover trial conducted from May 1996 to February 1998. Setting: Eight audiology laboratories at Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers across the United States. Patients: A sample of 360 patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (mean age, 67.2 years; 57% male; 78.6% white). Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 sequences of linear peak clipper (PC), compression limiter (CL), and wide dynamic range compressor (WDRC) hearing aid circuits. All patients wore each of the 3 hearing aids, which were installed in identical casements, for 3 months. Main Outcome Measures: Results of tests of speech recognition, sound quality, and subjective hearing aid benefit, administered at baseline and after each 3-month intervention with and without a hearing aid. At the end of the experiment, patients ranked the 3 hearing aid circuits. Results: Each circuit markedly improved speech recognition, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech (all 52-dB and 62-dB conditions, P≤.001). All 3 circuits significantly reduced the frequency of problems encountered in verbal communication. Some test results suggested that CL and WDRC circuits provided a significantly better listening experience than PC circuits in word recognition (P = .002), loudness (P = .003), overall liking (P = .001), aversiveness of environmental sounds (P = .02), and distortion (P = .02). In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the CL hearing aid circuits more frequently (41.6%) than the WDRC (29.8%) and the PC (28.6%) (P=.001 for CL vs both WDRC and PC). Conclusions: Each circuit provided significant benefit in quiet and noisy listening situations. The CL and WDRC circuits appeared to provide superior benefits compared with the PC, although the differences between them were much less than the differences between the aided vs unaided conditions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1806-1813
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume284
Issue number14
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 11 2000

Fingerprint

Hearing Aids
Cross-Over Studies
Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Bilateral Hearing Loss
Audiology
Phonetics
Controlled Clinical Trials
Veterans
Multicenter Studies
Communication
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Larson, V. D., Williams, D. W., Henderson, W. G., Luethke, L. E., Beck, L. B., Noffsinger, D., ... Rappaport, B. Z. (2000). Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: A crossover trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(14), 1806-1813. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.14.1806

Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits : A crossover trial. / Larson, Vernon D.; Williams, David W.; Henderson, William G.; Luethke, Lynn E.; Beck, Lucille B.; Noffsinger, Douglas; Wilson, Richard H.; Dobie, Robert A.; Haskell, George B.; Bratt, Gene W.; Shanks, Janet E.; Stelmachowicz, Patricia G; Studebaker, Gerald A.; Boysen, Allen E.; Donahue, Amy; Canalis, Rinaldo; Fausti, Stephen A.; Rappaport, Bruce Z.

In: Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 284, No. 14, 11.10.2000, p. 1806-1813.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Larson, VD, Williams, DW, Henderson, WG, Luethke, LE, Beck, LB, Noffsinger, D, Wilson, RH, Dobie, RA, Haskell, GB, Bratt, GW, Shanks, JE, Stelmachowicz, PG, Studebaker, GA, Boysen, AE, Donahue, A, Canalis, R, Fausti, SA & Rappaport, BZ 2000, 'Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: A crossover trial', Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 284, no. 14, pp. 1806-1813. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.14.1806
Larson VD, Williams DW, Henderson WG, Luethke LE, Beck LB, Noffsinger D et al. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: A crossover trial. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000 Oct 11;284(14):1806-1813. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.14.1806
Larson, Vernon D. ; Williams, David W. ; Henderson, William G. ; Luethke, Lynn E. ; Beck, Lucille B. ; Noffsinger, Douglas ; Wilson, Richard H. ; Dobie, Robert A. ; Haskell, George B. ; Bratt, Gene W. ; Shanks, Janet E. ; Stelmachowicz, Patricia G ; Studebaker, Gerald A. ; Boysen, Allen E. ; Donahue, Amy ; Canalis, Rinaldo ; Fausti, Stephen A. ; Rappaport, Bruce Z. / Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits : A crossover trial. In: Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000 ; Vol. 284, No. 14. pp. 1806-1813.
@article{2531b43d715c44cbbf8cf046096684ab,
title = "Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: A crossover trial",
abstract = "Context: Numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit for a wide range of sensorineural hearing loss, but no carefully controlled, multicenter clinical trials comparing hearing aid efficacy have been conducted. Objective: To compare the benefits provided to patients with sensorineural hearing loss by 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits. Design: Double-blind, 3-period, 3-treatment crossover trial conducted from May 1996 to February 1998. Setting: Eight audiology laboratories at Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers across the United States. Patients: A sample of 360 patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (mean age, 67.2 years; 57{\%} male; 78.6{\%} white). Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 sequences of linear peak clipper (PC), compression limiter (CL), and wide dynamic range compressor (WDRC) hearing aid circuits. All patients wore each of the 3 hearing aids, which were installed in identical casements, for 3 months. Main Outcome Measures: Results of tests of speech recognition, sound quality, and subjective hearing aid benefit, administered at baseline and after each 3-month intervention with and without a hearing aid. At the end of the experiment, patients ranked the 3 hearing aid circuits. Results: Each circuit markedly improved speech recognition, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech (all 52-dB and 62-dB conditions, P≤.001). All 3 circuits significantly reduced the frequency of problems encountered in verbal communication. Some test results suggested that CL and WDRC circuits provided a significantly better listening experience than PC circuits in word recognition (P = .002), loudness (P = .003), overall liking (P = .001), aversiveness of environmental sounds (P = .02), and distortion (P = .02). In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the CL hearing aid circuits more frequently (41.6{\%}) than the WDRC (29.8{\%}) and the PC (28.6{\%}) (P=.001 for CL vs both WDRC and PC). Conclusions: Each circuit provided significant benefit in quiet and noisy listening situations. The CL and WDRC circuits appeared to provide superior benefits compared with the PC, although the differences between them were much less than the differences between the aided vs unaided 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 Wilson, {Richard H.} and Dobie, {Robert A.} and Haskell, {George B.} and Bratt, {Gene W.} and Shanks, {Janet E.} and Stelmachowicz, {Patricia G} and Studebaker, {Gerald A.} and Boysen, {Allen E.} and Amy Donahue and Rinaldo Canalis and Fausti, {Stephen A.} and Rappaport, {Bruce Z.}",
year = "2000",
month = "10",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1001/jama.284.14.1806",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "284",
pages = "1806--1813",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "14",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits

T2 - A crossover trial

AU - Larson, Vernon D.

AU - Williams, David W.

AU - Henderson, William G.

AU - Luethke, Lynn E.

AU - Beck, Lucille B.

AU - Noffsinger, Douglas

AU - Wilson, Richard H.

AU - Dobie, Robert A.

AU - Haskell, George B.

AU - Bratt, Gene W.

AU - Shanks, Janet E.

AU - Stelmachowicz, Patricia G

AU - Studebaker, Gerald A.

AU - Boysen, Allen E.

AU - Donahue, Amy

AU - Canalis, Rinaldo

AU - Fausti, Stephen A.

AU - Rappaport, Bruce Z.

PY - 2000/10/11

Y1 - 2000/10/11

N2 - Context: Numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit for a wide range of sensorineural hearing loss, but no carefully controlled, multicenter clinical trials comparing hearing aid efficacy have been conducted. Objective: To compare the benefits provided to patients with sensorineural hearing loss by 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits. Design: Double-blind, 3-period, 3-treatment crossover trial conducted from May 1996 to February 1998. Setting: Eight audiology laboratories at Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers across the United States. Patients: A sample of 360 patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (mean age, 67.2 years; 57% male; 78.6% white). Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 sequences of linear peak clipper (PC), compression limiter (CL), and wide dynamic range compressor (WDRC) hearing aid circuits. All patients wore each of the 3 hearing aids, which were installed in identical casements, for 3 months. Main Outcome Measures: Results of tests of speech recognition, sound quality, and subjective hearing aid benefit, administered at baseline and after each 3-month intervention with and without a hearing aid. At the end of the experiment, patients ranked the 3 hearing aid circuits. Results: Each circuit markedly improved speech recognition, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech (all 52-dB and 62-dB conditions, P≤.001). All 3 circuits significantly reduced the frequency of problems encountered in verbal communication. Some test results suggested that CL and WDRC circuits provided a significantly better listening experience than PC circuits in word recognition (P = .002), loudness (P = .003), overall liking (P = .001), aversiveness of environmental sounds (P = .02), and distortion (P = .02). In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the CL hearing aid circuits more frequently (41.6%) than the WDRC (29.8%) and the PC (28.6%) (P=.001 for CL vs both WDRC and PC). Conclusions: Each circuit provided significant benefit in quiet and noisy listening situations. The CL and WDRC circuits appeared to provide superior benefits compared with the PC, although the differences between them were much less than the differences between the aided vs unaided conditions.

AB - Context: Numerous studies have demonstrated that hearing aids provide significant benefit for a wide range of sensorineural hearing loss, but no carefully controlled, multicenter clinical trials comparing hearing aid efficacy have been conducted. Objective: To compare the benefits provided to patients with sensorineural hearing loss by 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits. Design: Double-blind, 3-period, 3-treatment crossover trial conducted from May 1996 to February 1998. Setting: Eight audiology laboratories at Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers across the United States. Patients: A sample of 360 patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (mean age, 67.2 years; 57% male; 78.6% white). Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 sequences of linear peak clipper (PC), compression limiter (CL), and wide dynamic range compressor (WDRC) hearing aid circuits. All patients wore each of the 3 hearing aids, which were installed in identical casements, for 3 months. Main Outcome Measures: Results of tests of speech recognition, sound quality, and subjective hearing aid benefit, administered at baseline and after each 3-month intervention with and without a hearing aid. At the end of the experiment, patients ranked the 3 hearing aid circuits. Results: Each circuit markedly improved speech recognition, with greater improvement observed for soft and conversationally loud speech (all 52-dB and 62-dB conditions, P≤.001). All 3 circuits significantly reduced the frequency of problems encountered in verbal communication. Some test results suggested that CL and WDRC circuits provided a significantly better listening experience than PC circuits in word recognition (P = .002), loudness (P = .003), overall liking (P = .001), aversiveness of environmental sounds (P = .02), and distortion (P = .02). In the rank-order ratings, patients preferred the CL hearing aid circuits more frequently (41.6%) than the WDRC (29.8%) and the PC (28.6%) (P=.001 for CL vs both WDRC and PC). Conclusions: Each circuit provided significant benefit in quiet and noisy listening situations. The CL and WDRC circuits appeared to provide superior benefits compared with the PC, although the differences between them were much less than the differences between the aided vs unaided conditions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034638514&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034638514&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.284.14.1806

DO - 10.1001/jama.284.14.1806

M3 - Article

VL - 284

SP - 1806

EP - 1813

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 14

ER -