Evaluating Benefits of Hearing Aid Microphone Directionality Technologies
Evaluating Benefits of Hearing Aid Microphone Directionality Technologies on Spatial Awareness and Speech Intelligibility
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Illinois
-
Aurora, Illinois, United States, 60505
- Sonova
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- 18 years or older
- experienced hearing aid users
- moderate to moderate severe sensorineural symmetrical hearing loss defined as a difference of less than 10 dB between ears
- must be able to use app and smart phone
Exclusion Criteria:
- asymmetrical hearing losses
- unable or unwilling to use app and smart phone
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: N/A
- Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Experimental
All study participants wearing study devices and evaluating three different microphone settings in simulated noise environments in lab, and using study devices during home trial period.
|
Commercially available hearing aid with three different microphone settings: DIR1, DIR2, and DIR3
Commercially available hearing aid with multiple directionality settings which will be adjustable by user via a mobile app during a home trial period.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Subjective Description of DIR1, DIR2, and DIR3 in Controlled Soft Noise Environment
Time Frame: Third appointment (day 28 of study)
|
Participant describes an acoustically noisy environment in which recorded speech is played from a speaker directly in front of the participant and recorded multi-talker babble is played from multiple speakers around the participant.
The participant uses a slider tool to choose if scene sounds acoustically wide (hearing all noise and speech), or acoustically narrow (hearing more of the speech than the noise).
The range of the slider is 0-100, with 0 indicating the sound scene is "wide" and 100 indicating the sound scene is "narrow".
The slider moves in 5 point increments.
This is a purely subjective description and there is no better or worse outcome.
|
Third appointment (day 28 of study)
|
|
Subjective Description of DIR1, DIR2, and DIR3 in Controlled Loud Noise Environment
Time Frame: Third appointment (day 28 of study)
|
Participant describes an acoustically noisy environment in which recorded speech is played from a speaker directly in front of the participant and recorded multi-talker babble is played from multiple speakers around the participant.
The participant uses a slider tool to choose if scene sounds acoustically wide (hearing all noise and speech), or acoustically narrow (hearing more of the speech than the noise).
The range of the slider is 0-100, with 0 indicating the sound scene is "wide" and 100 indicating the sound scene is "narrow".
The slider moves in 5 point increments.
This is a purely subjective description and there is no better or worse outcome.
|
Third appointment (day 28 of study)
|
|
Subjective Preference DIR1, DIR2, and DIR3 in Controlled Soft Noise Environments
Time Frame: Third appointment (day 28 of study)
|
Using a sliding scale, the participant chooses their preference for listening to the sound scene, however this time, 0 indicates "not preferred" and 100 indicates "most preferred".
The slider moves in 5 point increments.
This is purely subjective and there is no better or worse answer.
|
Third appointment (day 28 of study)
|
|
Subjective Preference DIR1, DIR2, and DIR3 in Controlled Loud Noise Environments
Time Frame: Third appointment (day 28 of study)
|
Using a sliding scale, the participant chooses their preference for listening to the sound scene, however this time, 0 indicates "not preferred" and 100 indicates "most preferred".
The slider moves in 5 point increments.
|
Third appointment (day 28 of study)
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Speech Reception Threshold
Time Frame: 2nd appointment (Day 14 of study)
|
Objective measure of speech reception thresholds with all three microphone settings (DIR1,DIR2,DIR3).
This is calculated as the Signal to Noise Ratio at which participant can correctly repeat 50% of the words.
A negative number (i.e.
-10) indicates that the participant correctly repeated 50% of the words when the speech signal was softer or lower than the noise level.
For example, an SNR score of -10 means that the the participant correctly repeated 50% of the words when the speech signal was 10 dB softer than the noise level.
In this case, the noise level was appropriate to the microphone setting, i.e., DIR1 was tested in softer noise and DIR2 and DIR3 were tested in loud noise.
|
2nd appointment (Day 14 of study)
|
|
Observations and Ratings of Satisfaction of Microphone Directionality in Real Life
Time Frame: 4 weeks
|
Participants made adjustments of microphone directionality via an app, in real world listening situations.
When participants adjusted the microphone directionality in real-time, they were also prompted via ecological momentary assessment to rate how satisfied they were with the adjustment.
Participants chose one of three satisfaction ratings: no, slight, or clear.
"Clear" satisfaction would be the best rating, indicating high satisfaction, "no" would be the worst rating, indicating no satisfaction, and "slight" would indicate somewhat satisfied.
|
4 weeks
|
|
Subjective Ratings of Transition Speed From One Directional Microphone Setting to Another Directional Setting
Time Frame: Third appointment (day 28 of study)
|
Participants listen to different samples of transition speed from one mic setting to another in an A/B comparison and rate which sample is more noticeable, i.e.
A is more noticeable than B, A is less noticeable than B, or A and B are the same.
No statistical analysis was done for this outcome measure.
Frequency distribution was completed to record the number of responses in which participants rated a 0 second transition time more noticeable than a 2s, 4s, and 8s transition time.
|
Third appointment (day 28 of study)
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Kevin Seitz-Paquette, AuD, Sonova AG
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- SRF-369
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.