Scholarlink

<p>To compare performance (and acceptability) of smartphone-application (SA) over hearing aid (HA) this prospective pilot study was conducted in 42 patients. A 15-day home-trial of SA was given, and their experience with new set of augmented tones through their respective ‘responses/ scores’ was recorded in blinded fashion. The main measures included auditory experiences as documented via standardized response scoring. Air-conduction thresholds were correlated with hearing handicap scores using Spearman analyses. Comparative performance assessments between the SA and HA were performed using Chi-square tests with Yates’ correction. The overall hearing handicap was evident in &gt; 80%. The subjective response for SA declared it unsatisfactory in 2 (4.76%), satisfactory in 8 (19.04%), good in 20 (47.61%), and very good in 12 (28.57%). While the main cause for concern was its size, only 7.31% had battery-related issues. Its subjective ‘absolute’-acceptability compared to best possible rehabilitation aids suggests a parallel objectivity. The SA demonstrated its non-inferior performance and extremely low cost option compared to latest technology digital HA. Its multiple tuning strategies facilitate differential frequency modulation and hearing in different circumstances, while its self-tuning capability limits patient-audiologist interactions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Does customized smartphone application perform better than advanced hearing aids? A pilot study

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月24日

查看全文
  • Adri Katyayan,
  • Angira Katyayan,
  • Pranav Mishra,
  • Radhika Mathur,
  • Anupam Mishra

摘要

To compare performance (and acceptability) of smartphone-application (SA) over hearing aid (HA) this prospective pilot study was conducted in 42 patients. A 15-day home-trial of SA was given, and their experience with new set of augmented tones through their respective ‘responses/ scores’ was recorded in blinded fashion. The main measures included auditory experiences as documented via standardized response scoring. Air-conduction thresholds were correlated with hearing handicap scores using Spearman analyses. Comparative performance assessments between the SA and HA were performed using Chi-square tests with Yates’ correction. The overall hearing handicap was evident in > 80%. The subjective response for SA declared it unsatisfactory in 2 (4.76%), satisfactory in 8 (19.04%), good in 20 (47.61%), and very good in 12 (28.57%). While the main cause for concern was its size, only 7.31% had battery-related issues. Its subjective ‘absolute’-acceptability compared to best possible rehabilitation aids suggests a parallel objectivity. The SA demonstrated its non-inferior performance and extremely low cost option compared to latest technology digital HA. Its multiple tuning strategies facilitate differential frequency modulation and hearing in different circumstances, while its self-tuning capability limits patient-audiologist interactions.