Speech Intelligibility in Noise Clinical Trial
— AUDIOCAP 1Official title:
Pilot Study of a Signal-processing Algorithm Aiming at Improving Speech-in-noise Intelligibility in Normal-hearing and Hearing-impaired Persons
Nearly half a billion people suffer from disabling hearing loss. The most common form of hearing loss in adults is age-related hearing loss (ARHL), which causes a reduced ability to understand speech in noisy environments. The ability of people with ARHL to communicate is therefore greatly impacted, limiting their social interactions and thus their quality of life. Yet, the wear of hearing aids - which is the current standard rehabilitation treatment in such cases - does not lead to optimal satisfactory outcomes when it comes to understanding speech in noisy environments. The objective of this pilot study is to test a new signal-processing algorithm, based on artificial intelligence, that aims at enhancing the intelligibility of speech-in-noise signals. The efficiency of the algorithm is compared to a standard denoising algorithm commonly used in hearing aids. The primary outcome measure is the word-identification performance of the participants, using the FrMatrix test (Jansen et al., 2012). Two secondary outcome measures are investigated: listening effort (self-assessed using a Likert scale, and measured through response times), and subjective preference (assessed in a paired-comparison task). The study is conducted in 20 normal-hearing subjects and in 40 older (age ≥ 55 years) hearing-impaired subjects.
| Status | Recruiting |
| Enrollment | 60 |
| Est. completion date | January 2023 |
| Est. primary completion date | January 2023 |
| Accepts healthy volunteers | Accepts Healthy Volunteers |
| Gender | All |
| Age group | 18 Years and older |
| Eligibility | Inclusion criteria for normal-hearing participants : - consenting to and available for the study - age = 18 years and = 25 years - right-handed - native French speaker - pure-tone air-conduction audiometric thresholds at .5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz all = 20 dB hearing loss (HL) Exclusion criteria for normal-hearing participants : - score at the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory > 56 - uncorrected visual impairment - pregnancy - subject placed under legal authority (guardianship, tutorship) Inclusion criteria for hearing-impaired participants : - consenting to and available for the study - age = 55 years - native French speaker - pure-tone air-conduction average hearing thresholds (PTA) for frequencies of .5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz = 30 dB HL and = 70 dB HL - right-ear PTA for low frequencies (< 2 kHz) lower than the right-ear PTA for high frequencies (> 4 kHz). The difference between the two PTAs must be = 20 dB - the difference between the PTA for frequencies of .5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz (PTA.5-4kHz) in the right ear and the left-ear PTA.5-4kHz must be = 10 dB Exclusion criteria for hearing-impaired participants : - score at the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory > 56 - history of a hearing impairment that was left uncorrected for more than 10 years - uncorrected visual impairment - congenital hearing impairment - Ménière's disease - auditory neuropathy - mixed hearing loss - fluctuating hearing impairment - sudden hearing loss - hearing impairment concomitant with other symptoms (e.g. vertigo) - score at the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) < 27 - subject placed under legal authority (guardianship, tutorship) |
| Country | Name | City | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| France | Clinique Rive Gauche | Toulouse |
| Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
|---|---|
| Archean Technologies |
France,
Amieva H, Ouvrard C, Giulioli C, Meillon C, Rullier L, Dartigues JF. Self-Reported Hearing Loss, Hearing Aids, and Cognitive Decline in Elderly Adults: A 25-Year Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Oct;63(10):2099-104. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13649. — View Citation
Bentler RA. Effectiveness of directional microphones and noise reduction schemes in hearing aids: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005 Jul-Aug;16(7):473-84. Review. — View Citation
Chong FY, Jenstad LM. A critical review of hearing-aid single-microphone noise-reduction studies in adults and children. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2018 Aug;13(6):600-608. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2017.1392619. Epub 2017 Oct 26. Review. — View Citation
Ciorba A, Bianchini C, Pelucchi S, Pastore A. The impact of hearing loss on the quality of life of elderly adults. Clin Interv Aging. 2012;7:159-63. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S26059. Epub 2012 Jun 15. Review. — View Citation
Ghulyan-Bédikian V, Paolino M, Giorgetti-D'Esclercs F, Paolino F. [Psychometric properties of a French adaptation of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory]. Encephale. 2010 Oct;36(5):390-6. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2009.12.007. Epub 2010 Jan 27. French. — View Citation
Gonthier C, Thomassin N, Roulin JL. The composite complex span: French validation of a short working memory task. Behav Res Methods. 2016 Mar;48(1):233-42. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0566-3. — View Citation
Jansen S, Luts H, Wagener KC, Kollmeier B, Del Rio M, Dauman R, James C, Fraysse B, Vormès E, Frachet B, Wouters J, van Wieringen A. Comparison of three types of French speech-in-noise tests: a multi-center study. Int J Audiol. 2012 Mar;51(3):164-73. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2011.633568. Epub 2011 Nov 28. — View Citation
Krueger M, Schulte M, Zokoll MA, Wagener KC, Meis M, Brand T, Holube I. Relation Between Listening Effort and Speech Intelligibility in Noise. Am J Audiol. 2017 Oct 12;26(3S):378-392. doi: 10.1044/2017_AJA-16-0136. — View Citation
Lakshmi MSK, Rout A, O'Donoghue CR. A systematic review and meta-analysis of digital noise reduction hearing aids in adults. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021 Feb;16(2):120-129. doi: 10.1080/17483107.2019.1642394. Epub 2019 Sep 10. — View Citation
Livingston G, Sommerlad A, Orgeta V, Costafreda SG, Huntley J, Ames D, Ballard C, Banerjee S, Burns A, Cohen-Mansfield J, Cooper C, Fox N, Gitlin LN, Howard R, Kales HC, Larson EB, Ritchie K, Rockwood K, Sampson EL, Samus Q, Schneider LS, Selbæk G, Teri L, Mukadam N. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care. Lancet. 2017 Dec 16;390(10113):2673-2734. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31363-6. Epub 2017 Jul 20. Review. — View Citation
Mener DJ, Betz J, Genther DJ, Chen D, Lin FR. Hearing loss and depression in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Sep;61(9):1627-9. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12429. — View Citation
Mick P, Kawachi I, Lin FR. The association between hearing loss and social isolation in older adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014 Mar;150(3):378-84. doi: 10.1177/0194599813518021. Epub 2014 Jan 2. — View Citation
Moore BC, Füllgrabe C, Stone MA. Determination of preferred parameters for multichannel compression using individually fitted simulated hearing AIDS and paired comparisons. Ear Hear. 2011 Sep-Oct;32(5):556-68. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31820b5f4c. — View Citation
Moulin A, Richard C. Sources of variability of speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) scores in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired populations. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(2):101-9. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1104734. Epub 2015 Dec 1. — View Citation
Nasreddine ZS, Patel BB. Validation of Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA, Alternate French Versions. Can J Neurol Sci. 2016 Sep;43(5):665-71. doi: 10.1017/cjn.2016.273. — View Citation
Neher T, Grimm G, Hohmann V, Kollmeier B. Do hearing loss and cognitive function modulate benefit from different binaural noise-reduction settings? Ear Hear. 2014 May-Jun;35(3):e52-62. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000003. — View Citation
Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113. — View Citation
* Note: There are 17 references in all — Click here to view all references
| Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Speech-in-noise word identification | Speech-in-noise word identification score as assessed using the FrMatrix test | during procedure, T1 | |
| Secondary | Listening effort | response times recorded during the FrMatrix test | during procedure, T1 | |
| Secondary | Listening effort | self-assessed subjective measures of listening effort. | during procedure, T1 | |
| Secondary | Subjective preference in terms of speech naturalness | Measures of relative preference using forced-choice pairwise comparisons | during procedure, T1 |