Are smartphone applications (App) useful to improve hearing?

Martínez-Beneyto, Paz; Franchella, Sebastiano; Rodriguez, Fabio Alonso; Navarro-Velasquez, Rafael; Martínez-Beneito, Miguel A.; Martini, Alessandro; Algarra, Jaime Marco

doi:10.14639/0392-100x-n0318

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared with similar studies, 13 , 15 , 16 , 30 this pilot study had too few subjects to provide general conclusions regarding the improvement of speech intelligibility. Further investigations with a larger sample size will allow us to compare more apps to hearing aids in terms of benefits under real-world conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Behavioral Evaluation of 3 Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid Apps for Patients with Mild Hearing Loss: An Exploratory Pilot Study

Koo¹,

Nguyen²,

Lee³

et al. 2022

Int Adv Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the behavioral performance of a selection of currently available hearing aid apps in patients with mild hearing loss. Methods: We investigated 3 user-friendly hearing aid apps (EarMachine, Sound Amplifier, and Petralex) with real-ear measurement, warble-tone audiometry, word recognition testing in unaided and aided conditions, and hearing-in-noise tests in quiet and noise-front conditions in a group of users with mild hearing impairment (n = 7) as a pilot for a future long-term investigation. Results from the apps were compared with those of a conventional hearing aid. Results: Hearing aids showed greater gain at 1 and 3 kHz than hearing aid apps in real-ear insertion gain of real-ear measurements. Hearing aids tended to have greater gain than hearing aid apps at 2 and 3 kHz in the sound field audiometry test. The clinical performance of the listeners tended to be better when using a hearing aid and Petralex (13% and 6% improvement in word recognition score, respectively), while EarMachine and Sound Amplifier conferred limited user benefit. The hearing aid apps did not improve signal-to-noise ratio in comparison with the unaided condition in the hearing-in-noise test. Conclusions: Some hearing aid apps were beneficial for patients with mild hearing loss in terms of amplification, but participants using the apps showed no improvements in hearing-in-noise tests.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Behavioral Evaluation of 3 Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid Apps for Patients with Mild Hearing Loss: An Exploratory Pilot Study

Koo¹,

Nguyen²,

Lee³

et al. 2022

Int Adv Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Martinez-Beneyto et al [ 36 ] studied whether audiological smartphone apps can improve audiological performance in groups without hearing loss or groups with various grades of hearing loss. Most participants showed improvement in PTA and word recognition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of a Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid App for Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss: Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Park¹,

Jo²,

Seo³

et al. 2023

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Hearing loss is a growing health concern worldwide. Hearing aids (HAs) are the treatment of choice for hearing rehabilitation in most cases of mild-to-moderate hearing loss. However, many patients with hearing loss do not use HAs due to their high cost, stigma, and inaccessibility. Since smartphones are widely used, many apps that mimic the amplification function of HAs have been introduced. Smartphone-based HA apps (SHAAs) are affordable and easy to access. However, the audiological benefit of SHAAs has not been determined. Objective We compared the audiological performance between an SHAA and a conventional HA in a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Methods Patients with mild-to-moderate hearing loss were prospectively enrolled from 2 tertiary hospitals and randomly assigned to either an SHAA (Petralex; IT4YOU Corp LLC) or a conventional HA (Siya 1 miniRITE; Oticon A/S). For the cross-over study design, participants used the alternate device and repeated the same 2-month trial. Audiological measurements were obtained using hearing tests, real-ear measurements, and the hearing-in-noise test (HINT). Subjective satisfaction was evaluated using the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA). Results Overall, 63 participants were screened and 38 completed the study. In sound-field audiometry testing, the SHAA showed a 20- to 60-dB gain in the low-to-high frequencies of the hearing threshold level. The HA provided adequate gain in the middle-to-high frequencies (55, 65, and 75 dB in real-ear measurements), which is the sound level for most speaking volumes. However, the SHAA could not improve word recognition at 50 dB. The HA showed better audiological performance than the SHAA in both quiet and noisy conditions in the HINT. The IOI-HA scores were significantly improved by both the HA and SHAA versus unaided conditions. Among the SHAA users, 37% (14/38), 42% (16/38), 24% (9/38), and 32% (12/38) showed improvement in APHAB scores for ease of communication, reverberation, background noise, and aversiveness of sounds, respectively. There were no differences in adverse events between the 2 study groups. Conclusions The HA showed better performance than the SHAA in word recognition and the HINT. However, the SHAA was significantly better than unaided hearing in terms of amplification. The SHAA may be a useful hearing assistance device for patients with mild-to-moderate hearing loss when listening to soft sounds in quiet conditions. The SHAA demonstrated poorer performance than the HA in the mid- to high-frequency sounds that are important for word recognition, sound quality, and hearing in noisy conditions. Further development of the signal technology of SHAAs is needed to improve the sound quality of mid- to high-frequency sounds and overcome noisy environments.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have demonstrated that SHAAs can improve hearing performance in patients with and without hearing loss [ 20 , 40 ]. Most previous studies compared auditory performance with conventional HAs in patients with hearing loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge and Expectations of Hearing Aid Apps Among Smartphone Users and Hearing Professionals: Cross-sectional Survey

Han¹,

Park²,

Song³

et al. 2022

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite the increasing prevalence of hearing loss, the cost and psychological barriers to the use of hearing aids may prevent their use in individuals with hearing loss. Patients with hearing loss can benefit from smartphone-based hearing aid apps (SHAAs), which are smartphone apps that use a mobile device as a sound amplifier. Objective The aim of this study is to determine how ear, nose, and throat outpatients perceive SHAAs, analyze the factors that affect their perceptions, and estimate the costs of an annual subscription to an app through a self-administered questionnaire survey of smartphone users and hearing specialists. Methods This study used a cross-sectional, multicenter survey of both ear, nose, and throat outpatients and hearing specialists. The questionnaire was designed to collect personal information about the respondents and their responses to 18 questions concerning SHAAs in five domains: knowledge, needs, cost, expectations, and information. Perception questions were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Questions about the expected cost of SHAAs were included in the questionnaire distributed to hearing experts. Results Among the 219 smartphone users and 42 hearing specialists, only 8 (3.7%) respondents recognized SHAAs, whereas 18% (47/261) of respondents reported considering the use of an assistive device to improve their hearing capacity. The average perception score was 2.81 (SD 1.22). Among the factors that shaped perceptions of SHAAs, the needs category received the lowest scores (2.02, SD 1.42), whereas the cost category received the highest scores (3.29, SD 1.14). Age was correlated with the information domain (P<.001), and an increased level of hearing impairment resulted in significantly higher points in the needs category (P<.001). Patients expected the cost of an annual app subscription to an SHAA to be approximately US $86, and the predicted cost was associated with economic status (P=.02) and was higher than the prices expected by hearing specialists (P<.001). Conclusions Outpatients expected SHAAs to cost more than hearing specialists. However, the perception of the SHAA was relatively low. In this regard, enhanced awareness is required to popularize SHAAs.

show abstract

Are smartphone applications (App) useful to improve hearing?

Cited by 8 publications

References 8 publications

Behavioral Evaluation of 3 Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid Apps for Patients with Mild Hearing Loss: An Exploratory Pilot Study

Behavioral Evaluation of 3 Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid Apps for Patients with Mild Hearing Loss: An Exploratory Pilot Study

Feasibility of a Smartphone-Based Hearing Aid App for Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss: Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Knowledge and Expectations of Hearing Aid Apps Among Smartphone Users and Hearing Professionals: Cross-sectional Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About