The Benefit of Hearing Aids as Measured by Listening Accuracy, Subjective Listening Effort, and Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is broad consensus that listening effort is an important outcome for measuring hearing performance. However, there remains debate on the best ways to measure listening effort. This study sought to measure neural correlates of listening effort using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) in experienced adult hearing aid users. The study evaluated impacts of amplification and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) on cerebral blood oxygenation, with the expectation that easier listening conditions would be associated with less oxygenation in the prefrontal cortex. Thirty experienced adult hearing aid users repeated sentence-final words from low-context Revised Speech Perception in Noise Test sentences. Participants repeated words at a hard SNR (individual SNR-50) or easy SNR (individual SNR-50 + 10 dB), while wearing hearing aids fit to prescriptive targets or without wearing hearing aids. In addition to assessing listening accuracy and subjective listening effort, prefrontal blood oxygenation was measured using fNIRS. As expected, easier listening conditions (i.e., easy SNR, with hearing aids) led to better listening accuracy, lower subjective listening effort, and lower oxygenation across the entire prefrontal cortex compared to harder listening conditions. Listening accuracy and subjective listening effort were also significant predictors of oxygenation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".