Listeners will conduct sound quality ratings of recordings talkers in a moving car processed using three different microphone processing strategies: an investigational adaptive directional microphone, an omnidirectional microphone and a fixed directional microphone. Participants will listen to the recordings streamed via commercially-available and individually-prescribed hearing aids, and conduct ratings onsite in the lab. The procedure will involve a training session and within-subject repeated measures. Stimuli will be randomized.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NA
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
20
A receiver-in-canal hearing aid developed by the Study Sponsor used with the investigational adaptive directional microphone strategy that is expected to improve sound quality of speech in a car.
A receiver-in-canal hearing aid developed by the Study Sponsor used with the comparator omnidirectional microphone strategy that is used with the default settings as specified in the manufacturer's fitting software.
A receiver-in-canal hearing aid developed by the Study Sponsor used with the comparator fixed directional microphone strategy that is used with the default settings as specified in the manufacturer's fitting software.
Sonova Innovation Centre Toronto
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Speech Clarity
The sound quality ratings will be conducted via a computer-based questionnaire that contains sound samples that participants listen to and rate. Sound quality rating scales are continuous and range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with 5 descriptors unique to the dimension at 5 intervals on the scale (0, 25, 50, 75, 100) Participants will be instructed to "Please rate the clarity of speech". Speech clarity ratings will be measured on a 100-point continuous slider from worst to best (0-Very unclear, 25- Unclear, 50-Slightly clear, 75-Clear, 100-Very clear). Speech clarity ratings are expected to be impacted by how intelligible the speech is. Participants will rate and compare speech clarity between the investigational and comparator features.
Time frame: Up to 6 hours over 3 2-hour sessions
Noise Annoyance
The sound quality ratings will be conducted via a computer-based questionnaire that contains sound samples that participants listen to and rate. Sound quality rating scales are continuous and range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with 5 descriptors unique to the dimension at 5 intervals on the scale (0, 25, 50, 75, 100) Participants will be instructed to "Please rate how annoying the noise is". Noise annoyance ratings will be measured on a 100-point continuous slider from worst to best (0- Extremely annoying, 25-Very annoying, 50-Moderately annoying, 75-Slightly annoying, 100-Not at all annoying). Noise annoyance ratings are expected to be impacted by how bothersome the background noise in the recordings is. Participants will rate and compare noise annoyance between the investigational and comparator features.
Time frame: Up to 6 hours over 3 2-hour sessions
Spatialization
The sound quality ratings will be conducted via a computer-based questionnaire that contains sound samples that participants listen to and rate. Sound quality rating scales are continuous and range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with 5 descriptors unique to the dimension at 5 intervals on the scale (0, 25, 50, 75, 100) Participants will be instructed to "Please rate your confidence that the talker is in \[a location\]", with the local being either passenger of rear left. Spatialization ratings will be measured on a 100-point continuous slider from worst to best (0-I don't know where the talker is, 25-The talker might be to my \[location\], 50-The talker is probably to my \[location\], 75-The talker is to my \[location\], 100-The talker is definitely to my \[location\]). Spatialization ratings are expected to be impacted by how well the recordings preserve spatial perception. Participants will rate and compare spatialization between the investigational and comparator features.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: Up to 6 hours over 3 2-hour sessions
Transition Annoyance
The sound quality ratings will be conducted via a computer-based questionnaire that contains sound samples that participants listen to and rate. Sound quality rating scales are continuous and range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with 5 descriptors unique to the dimension at 5 intervals on the scale (0, 25, 50, 75, 100) Participants will be instructed to "Please rate how annoying the transitions are". Transitions annoyance ratings will be measured on a 100-point continuous slider from worst to best (0-Extremely annoying, 25-Very annoying, 50-Moderately annoying, 75-Slightly annoying, 100-Not at all annoying). Transition annoyance ratings are expected to be influenced by presence of unexpected sounds or transitions that occur in different microphone modes and different listening situations. Participants will rate and compare transition annoyance between the investigational and comparator features.
Time frame: Up to 6 hours over 3 2-hour sessions
Overall Impression
The sound quality ratings will be conducted via a computer-based questionnaire that contains sound samples that participants listen to and rate. Sound quality rating scales are continuous and range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with 5 descriptors unique to the dimension at 5 intervals on the scale (0, 25, 50, 75, 100) Participants will be instructed to "All things considered, please rate overall preferences". Overall preferences ratings will be measured on a 100-point continuous slider from worst to best (0-Bad, 25-Poor, 50-Fair, 75-Good, 100-Excellent). Overall impression ratings are expected to be impacted by participants' overall preferences for the different stimuli. Participants will rate and compare overall impression between the investigational and comparator features.
Time frame: Up to 6 hours over 3 2-hour sessions