OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether hearing aids improve speech recognition in noise and self-reported listening outcomes in clinically heterogeneous adults with subjective listening difficulties in noise. DESIGN: Prospective, uncontrolled, within-subject intervention study. Participants completed multidimensional baseline testing followed by an 8-week hearing-aid trial assessing speech-in-noise performance, listening effort, self-report outcomes, and individualised benefit. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixteen native Australian English-speaking adults aged 18-60 (mean 39.8 ± 11.1) years with near normal hearing sensitivity and substantial self-reported listening difficulties. RESULTS: At baseline, participants had normal audiological results but heterogeneous auditory-processing profiles, with the most consistent deficits on speech-in-noise measures. Speech Reception Thresholds in noise with hearing aids (-14.2 ± 2.2 dB SNR) were significantly better than unaided (-11.4 ± 1.6 dB SNR), showing a 2.8 dB improvement (95% CI: 2.1-3.4), t (15) = 8.8, p<.001. Unaided performance explained 69.2% of aided performance variance, indicating a consistent relationship with some individual variability. Although aided benefit varied across participants, the present data did not permit reliable separation of measurement variability from true differences in treatment response. Self-report measures demonstrated reduced hearing handicap, improved perceived listening ability, and favourable hearing-aid use and satisfaction. Unaided spatialised-noise test scores did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing aids were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in speech-in-noise performance in adults with subjective listening difficulties and heterogeneous auditory-processing profiles. Apparent variability in aided benefit should be interpreted cautiously, as it likely reflects both measurement variability and true inter-participant differences. The broad consistency in benefit was observed despite marked differences in participants' baseline characteristics across multiple dimensions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: