Abstract:
Objectives: To evaluate the performance and listening experience of conventional hearing aids compared to the AUD-1 application (app) for the iPad. Additionally, the usability of the AUD-1 app will be assessed by audiologists and hearing loss participants. Introduction: The World Health Organization predicts that hearing aid production meets less than 10% of the global need for rehabilitative amplification (WHO, 2015). The steep cost of hearing aids can deter people from purchasing them, as well as influence whether they use them successfully (Kochkin, 2000; Kochkin, 2007). This is doubly concerning since the prevalence of hearing loss is greater in low-income regions (Stevens et al., 2013). There is therefore a need for a cheaper, more widely accessible intervention to hearing loss. The AUD-1 app for the iPad seeks to meet this need, and has the potential to provide rehabilitative amplification with or without the assistance of a hearing care professional. Methods: Sixteen adults with hearing loss took part in a cross-sectional analysis of two rehabilitative amplification options; conventional hearing aids and the AUD-1 app for the iPad. The study consisted of a first-fit programming, followed by objective and subjective measures. Objective measures included the Quick speech-in-noise™ (QuickSIN™) test, as well as real-ear measures. Subjective measures involved a series of Likert rating scales to assess sound quality. Ten audiologists and sixteen hearing loss participants assessed the usability of the AUD-1 app using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Results: Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed no statistically significant differences between conventional hearing aids and the AUD-1 app in terms of QuickSIN™ scores, real-ear measures, or sound quality measures. Audiologists’ and hearing loss participants’ scores from the SUS suggest the AUD-1 app’s usability to be “marginal” and “acceptable” respectively. Conclusions: The AUD-1 application may be a viable alternative to conventional hearing aids. This would be particularly true in third world nations or rural areas that might otherwise not have access to conventional hearing aids or audiological intervention. However, rehabilitation that is entirely independent of an audiologist might be sub-optimal or unsafe, and would fail to provide listening strategies or identify more complex pathologies that might be present.