Adults 18 to 99, any sex, with Hearing Loss, Sensorineural or Hearing Loss, Bilateral. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.
Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov
Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.
Pre-filtered sound samples (based on frequency response curves) will be presented via a paired comparison task in which participants will determine which sound sample they prefer (i.e. better sound quality). Sound samples will be presented via hearing aids that are programmed to the participant's hearing loss.
Participant's will be presented with two samples at a time and will choose which sample they prefer. For example, if Sample A was preferred over Sample B, then Sample A gets a score of 1. If Sample B was preferred over Sample A, then Sample B gets a score of 1. At the end of the task, s
Numbe of times Variation 1 was preferred over variation 2 across all genres per participant.
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
10.7
± 0.915
Numbe of times Variation 1 was preferred over variation 3 across all genres per participant.
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
9.41
± 0.805
Numbe of times Variation 2 was preferred over variation 1 across all genres per participant.
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
7.46
± 0.939
Number of times variation 2 was rated higher in sound quality than variation 3 across all samples
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
5.91
± 0.588
Numbe of times Variation 3 was preferred over variation 1 across all genres per participant.
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
8.32
± 0.815
Numbe of times Variation 3 was preferred over variation 2 across all genres per participant.
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
8.05
± 0.757
Numbe of times Variation 1 was rated the same as variation 2 across all genres per participant.
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
3.13
± 0.487
Numbe of times Variation 1 was rated the same as variation 3 across all genres per participant.
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
3.59
± 0.462
Sound Quality Rating - Live - CountsSecondary· 60 minutes
Participants will be asked to wear hearing aids and as they listen to speech in noise. They will be asked to toggle between two hearing aid programs and will be asked to make ratings in the lab and outdoors.
Similar to Outcome 1, scores will be tallied at the end to see which program of the two was preferred more in the different listening environments. Scores can range from 0 (the program was not preferred at all) to unlimited (dependent on the numbers of trials run and samples tested). Higher scores will indicate that the program was preferred more than the other program and lowers scores m
# of times the standard curve was rated higher in preference than variation 4 across samples - Lab
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
79
# of times the standard curve was rated lower in preference than variation 4 across samples - Lab
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
95
# of times the standard curve was rated the same as variation 4 in preference across samples - Lab
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
46
# of times the standard curve was rated higher in preference than variation4 across samples-Outdoors
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
86
# of times the standard curve was rated lower in preference than variation4 across samples-Outdoors
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
104
# of times the standard curve was rated the same as variation4 in preference across samples-Outdoors
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
30
Sound Quality Rating - Live - PreferencesSecondary· 60 minutes
Participants will be asked to wear hearing aids and as they listen to speech in noise. They will be asked to toggle between two hearing aid programs and determine which program they prefer to listen to.
Similar to Outcome 1, scores will be tallied at the end to see which program of the two was preferred more in the different listening environments. Scores can range from 0 (the program was not preferred at all) to unlimited (dependent on the numbers of trials run and samples tested). Highers scores will indicate that the program was preferred more than the other program and lowers scores mean
# of participants that had an overall preference toward variation #4 vs. standard curve - Outdoors
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
15
# of participants that had an overall preference toward standard curve vs. Variation #4 - Outdoors
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
6
# of participants that had no preference toward standard curve vs. Variation #4 - Outdoors
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
1
US Matrix Test in Quiet - SRTSecondary· 30 Minutes
Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) sentences were presented to participants while they were aided under the standard curve, aided under curve #4, and unaided. Participants are presented with sentences from a loudspeaker placed infront of them and asked to repeat what they heard. Correct repitition results in the next sentence to be presented at a lower sound level. Incorrect repetition results in an increase in presentation level for the next sentence. 20 sentences are presented for each conidition (i.e., unaided, aided with the standard curve, and aided under curve #4). Speech Recognition Thresho
Unaided - Signal to Noise Ratio at 50% correct (SRT50)
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
34.1
± 9.9
Standard Curve - Signal to Noise Ratio at 50% correct (SRT50)
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
25.8
± 4.3
Variation 4 - Signal to Noise Ratio at 50% correct (SRT50)
Group
Value
95% CI
Participants With Hearing Loss
26.1
± 4.21
Sponsor's own description
Internal research on the manufacturer's hearing aid products has idenitfied areas in which the investigators can improve the hearing aid frequency response curve. This study aims to investigate the current freqeuncy response curve in the manufacturer's products to variations of these curves to determine if hearing aid users prefer the variations over the manufacturer's standard curve.
Publications & conference data
No peer-reviewed publications indexed yet for this trial. Completed trials usually publish results within 12-18 months.
Other recruiting trials for Hearing Loss, Sensorineural
Currently open trials in the same condition.
NCT06499805 — Barriers and Facilitators to OTC Hearing Aids Success
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06560918 — Self-efficacy-based Auditory Rehabilitation With Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06882889 — Comparing the Efficacy of Domestic Versus Imported Hearing Aids in ARHL
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06664697 — Post-Market Clinical Investigation of the IotaSOFT Insertion System
· recruiting
NCT06268340 — Hearing and Structure Preservation Via ECochG
· NA
· recruiting
Other Sonova AG trials
Trials by the same sponsor.
NCT07526428 — Investigating the DNN Noise Reduction Feature in Phonak Hearing Aids Using Ecological Momentary Assessment
· NA
· enrolling by invitation
NCT07501312 — Remote Microphone Performance Comparison in Adults With Hearing Loss
· NA
· enrolling by invitation
NCT07414329 — Efficacy and Effectiveness of an Investigational Behind-the-Ear Hearing Device Kit
· NA
· recruiting
NCT06957730 — A Comparison of Hearing Aid Noise Programs on Speech Intelligibility
· NA
· completed
NCT06746038 — Evaluation of Extended Wear Hearing Aid for Mild Hearing Loss
· NA
· not yet recruiting
Drug + disease cross-links: matched in real time against Drug Landscape's normalised drug + company + condition tables
Sponsor: as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov by Sonova AG
Last refreshed: 24 March 2025
Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT05521308.