↓ Skip to main content

Using Speech Recall in Hearing Aid Fitting and Outcome Evaluation Under Ecological Test Conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Ear and hearing (Print), July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Speech Recall in Hearing Aid Fitting and Outcome Evaluation Under Ecological Test Conditions
Published in
Ear and hearing (Print), July 2016
DOI 10.1097/aud.0000000000000294
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Lunner, Mary Rudner, Tove Rosenbom, Jessica Ågren, Elaine Hoi Ning Ng

Abstract

In adaptive Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) tests used in the audiological clinic, speech is presented at signal to noise ratios (SNRs) that are lower than those generally encountered in real-life communication situations. At higher, ecologically valid SNRs, however, SRTs are insensitive to changes in hearing aid signal processing that may be of benefit to listeners who are hard of hearing. Previous studies conducted in Swedish using the Sentence-final Word Identification and Recall test (SWIR) have indicated that at such SNRs, the ability to recall spoken words may be a more informative measure. In the present study, a Danish version of SWIR, known as the Sentence-final Word Identification and Recall Test in a New Language (SWIRL) was introduced and evaluated in two experiments. The objective of experiment 1 was to determine if the Swedish results demonstrating benefit from noise reduction signal processing for hearing aid wearers could be replicated in 25 Danish participants with mild to moderate symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. The objective of experiment 2 was to compare direct-drive and skin-drive transmission in 16 Danish users of bone-anchored hearing aids with conductive hearing loss or mixed sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. In experiment 1, performance on SWIRL improved when hearing aid noise reduction was used, replicating the Swedish results and generalizing them across languages. In experiment 2, performance on SWIRL was better for direct-drive compared with skin-drive transmission conditions. These findings indicate that spoken word recall can be used to identify benefits from hearing aid signal processing at ecologically valid, positive SNRs where SRTs are insensitive.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 28%
Student > Master 17 15%
Researcher 14 13%
Other 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 16 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Neuroscience 14 13%
Psychology 11 10%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 31 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2018.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Ear and hearing (Print)
#1,397
of 2,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,231
of 367,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ear and hearing (Print)
#30
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,008 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.