Two Tests for Quantifying Aided Hearing at Low- and High-Input Levels

Under- and overamplification of sound is a common problem in hearing aid fitting. This paper describes the implementation of two new variants of the hearing in noise test for quantifying aided hearing at the lower and upper ends of the range of everyday-life sound levels. We present results from experiments carried out with 30 adult hearing aid users to determine the respective test-retest reliabilities. Participants completed a test battery consisting of the standard Danish hearing in noise test, a variant targeting the lower threshold of audibility and a variant targeting the limit of loudness discomfort. The participants completed the test battery twice for reliability analysis. The results revealed a significant difference between test and retest for both the hearing in noise test and the two hearing in noise test variants. However, the effect sizes for the differences were all very small. A calculation of Pearson correlation coefficients showed that both the hearing in noise test and the two new hearing in noise test variants had significant and strong correlations between test and retest. The within-subject standard deviations were determined to be 0.8 dB for hearing in noise test, 0.9 dB for lower-end test, and 2.2 dB for upper-end test. The findings demonstrate that both the lower-end test and upper-end test have high test-retest reliabilities, and thus can provide consistent and reliable results.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Trends in Hearing
Published
2025-03-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/23312165251322299
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.86

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Two Tests for Quantifying Aided Hearing at Low- and High-Input Levels

Ellen Raben Pedersen, Chris Bang Sørensen, Carl Pedersen, Jesper Hvass Schmidt et al.
2 citations
Trends in Hearing
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
2.86
article

Two Tests for Quantifying Aided Hearing at Low- and High-Input Levels

Ellen Raben Pedersen, Chris Bang Sørensen, Carl Pedersen, Jesper Hvass Schmidt, Søren Laugesen
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Under- and overamplification of sound is a common problem in hearing aid fitting. This paper describes the implementation of two new variants of the hearing in noise test for quantifying aided hearing at the lower and upper ends of the range of everyday-life sound levels. We present results from experiments carried out with 30 adult hearing aid users to determine the respective test-retest reliabilities. Participants completed a test battery consisting of the standard Danish hearing in noise test, a variant targeting the lower threshold of audibility and a variant targeting the limit of loudness discomfort. The participants completed the test battery twice for reliability analysis. The results revealed a significant difference between test and retest for both the hearing in noise test and the two hearing in noise test variants. However, the effect sizes for the differences were all very small. A calculation of Pearson correlation coefficients showed that both the hearing in noise test and the two new hearing in noise test variants had significant and strong correlations between test and retest. The within-subject standard deviations were determined to be 0.8 dB for hearing in noise test, 0.9 dB for lower-end test, and 2.2 dB for upper-end test. The findings demonstrate that both the lower-end test and upper-end test have high test-retest reliabilities, and thus can provide consistent and reliable results.

Trends in HearingVol. 29
University of Southern Denmark (DK), Maersk (Denmark) (DK), Odense University Hospital (DK), Interacoustics (Denmark) (DK)
Innovationsfonden, Odense Universitetshospital, William Demant Fonden
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
2.86
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.