Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose: Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) reduces high-frequency audibility and speech intelligibility during TV viewing, a major daily activity of older adults. This study compared a speech-clarityoptimized TV soundbar applying hearing-aid-based signal processing in three modes of increasing strength (M1-M3) with two commercial soundbars (A, B).Methods: Thirty-two older adults with ARHL (age, 74.8 ± 7.1 years; better-ear four-frequency pure-tone average [PTA], 46.9 ± 9.0 dB HL) participated in a participant-blind, within-subject study. Participants rated TV news presented through five conditions in randomized order at approximately 65 dB sound pressure level on a 10-item, 7-point questionnaire covering clarity, listening effort, sound quality, and satisfaction. All participants were tested unaided, and 25 hearing-aid users were also tested aided. Analyses used a linear mixed-effects model and Pearson correlation.Results: Listening scores differed significantly across conditions (χ² (4) = 171.91; p < 0.001), without a significant condition × session interaction. In the unaided session, M3 received the highest score (5.26 ± 2.05), exceeding A (3.00 ± 2.05) and B (2.89 ± 1.95), and scores increased with processing strength (M1 < M2 < M3) across sessions and domains. M3 was chosen as the clearest condition by 75.0% of participants. Poorer PTA was associated with lower absolute scores (M3: r = -0.73; p < 0.001), but not with the M3-A difference (r = -0.07; p = 0.696).Conclusion: The strongest mode of the speech-clarity-optimized soundbar received higher TV listening ratings than the commercial soundbars across the hearing-loss range examined. Objective speech-recognition testing should confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ku et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: