Face masks are mandatory during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to attenuation of sound energy and loss of visual cues which are important for communication. This study explores how a face mask affects speech performance for individuals with and without hearing loss. Four video recordings (a female speaker with and without a face mask and a male speaker with and without a face mask) were used to examine individuals’ speech performance. The participants completed a listen-and-repeat task while watching four types of video recordings. Acoustic characteristics of speech signals based on mask type (no mask, surgical, and N95) were also examined. The availability of visual cues was beneficial for speech understanding—both groups showed significant improvements in speech perception when they were able to see the speaker without the mask. However, when the speakers were wearing the mask, no statistical significance was observed between no visual cues and visual cues conditions. Findings of the study demonstrate that provision of visual cues is beneficial for speech perception for individuals with normal hearing and hearing impairment. This study adds value to the importance of the use of communication strategies during the pandemic where visual information is lost due to the face mask.

Objectives. This study was conducted to investigate the electroacoustic characteristics of personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), to identify whether PSAPs provide adequate gain and output for three common hearing loss (HL) configurations, and to compare the benefits of a representative PSAP (RPSAP) and a conventional hearing aid (HA) for clinical hearing outcomes as a pilot study.Methods. The study comprised three phases: electroacoustic analysis, simulated real-ear measurements (REMs), and clinical hearing experiments. Electroacoustic analysis and simulated REMs were performed for three basic PSAPs (BeethoSOL, EarJJang, and Geniesori2) and three high-end PSAPs (Hearing Able, Olive Smart Ear, and SoriIn) using the Aurical Hearing Instrument Test box with a 2-mL coupler. Four electroacoustic characteristics (maximum output sound pressure level at 90 dB SPL, frequency range, equivalent input noise, and total harmonic distortion) were investigated. By simulated REMs, appropriate levels of the six PSAPs for three common HL configurations (mild-to-moderate high-frequency HL, moderate to moderately severe sloping HL, and moderate flat HL) were determined. Clinical experiments compared the performance of RPSAP to HA, both of which were fitted by audiologists using REMs. Clinical experiments were administered using functional gain, a word recognition test, and the Korean version of the Hearing in Noise Test in six participants with bilateral moderate sensorineural HL.Results. The two high-end devices met all tolerances. One basic and two high-end PSAPs showed appropriate levels for three common HL configurations. In the clinical experiments, the RPSAP showed better performance than unaided, but slightly worse than HA under all test conditions.Conclusion. Certain PSAPs met all specified tolerances for electroacoustic analysis and approximated prescriptive targets in well-controlled laboratory conditions. The pilot clinical experiments explored the possibility that the RPSAP could serve as a hearing assistive device for patients with moderate HL.

Kim GY, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2022 Mar;37(12):e94. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e94

Purpose: This study explores the influence of the noise-canceling technology in commercial earphones on sound pressure levels and preferred listening levels in terms of hearing protection. Materials and Methods: Thirty individuals completed puretone audiometry and real-ear measurements to assess sound pressure levels at the level of the eardrum with and without the activation of the noise-canceling function. The Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research was used to investigate the acoustic characteristics of two environmental sounds (bus and café). Two types of earphones (wireless and wired canal type) were utilized in the study. Results: For both bus and café noises, in the low-frequency range, sound pressure levels were significantly decreased for all types of earphones when the noise-canceling function was turned on. The same results were observed for the whole frequency range. In terms of preferred listening levels, the wireless canal type and wired canal type earphones showed significant reduction in volume levels. Conclusion: The findings of the study show that for both low- and whole frequency range, the use of noise-canceling function significantly decreases the sound pressure levels of the signal for all styles of earphones, suggesting a potential of the noise-canceling technology in hearing protection.

Background: Hearing loss limits communication and social activity, and hearing aids (HAs) are an efficient rehabilitative option for improving oral communication and speech comprehension, as well as the psychosocial comfort of people with hearing loss. To overcome this problem, over-the-counter amplification devices including personal sound amplification products and wearable augmented reality devices (WARDs) have been introduced. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of WARDs for patients with mild to moderate hearing loss. Methods: A total of 40 patients (18 men and 22 women) with mild to moderate hearing loss were enrolled prospectively in this study. All participants were instructed to wear a WARD, Galaxy Buds Pro (Samsung Electronics), at least 4 hours a day for 2 weeks, for amplifying ambient sounds. Questionnaires including the Korean version of the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (K-APHAB) and the Korean adaptation of the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (K-IOI-HA) were used to assess personal satisfaction in all participants. Audiologic tests, including sound field audiometry, sound field word recognition score (WRS), and the Korean version of hearing in noise test (K-HINT), were administered to 14 of 40 patients. The tests were performed under two conditions: unaided and aided with WARDs. Results: The mean age of the participants was 55.4 (SD 10.7) years. After 2 weeks of the field trial, participants demonstrated a benefit of WARDs on the K-APHAB. Scores of 3 subscales of ease of communication, reverberation, and background noise were improved significantly (P<.001). However, scores regarding aversiveness were worse under the aided condition (P<.001). K-IOI-HA findings indicated high user satisfaction after the 2-week field trial. On audiologic evaluation, the K-HINT did not show significant differences between unaided and aided conditions (P=.97). However, the hearing threshold on sound field audiometry (P=.001) and the WRS (P=.002) showed significant improvements under the aided condition. Conclusions: WARDs can be beneficial for patients with mild to moderate hearing loss as a cost-effective alternative to conventional hearing aids.