METHOD: Articles published between 2000 and 2016 were searched in PUBMED and EBSCO databases.
RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were included in the final review. Most studies with adult participants showed that SMNR has no effect on speech intelligibility. Positive results were reported for acceptance of background noise, preference, and listening effort. Studies of school-aged children were consistent with the findings of adult studies. No study with infants or young children of under 5 years old was found. Recent studies on noise-reduction systems not yet available in wearable hearing aids have documented benefits of noise reduction on memory for speech processing for older adults.
CONCLUSIONS: This evidence supports the use of SMNR for adults and school-aged children when the aim is to improve listening comfort or reduce listening effort. Future research should test SMNR with infants and children who are younger than 5 years of age. Further development, testing, and clinical trials should be carried out on algorithms not yet available in wearable hearing aids. Testing higher cognitive level for speech processing and learning of novel sounds or words could show benefits of advanced signal processing features. These approaches should be expanded to other populations such as children and younger adults. Implications for rehabilitation The review provides a quick reference for students and clinicians regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of SMNR in wearable hearing aids. This information is useful during counseling session to build a realistic expectation among hearing aid users. Most studies in the adult population suggest that SMNR may provide some benefits to adult listeners in terms of listening comfort, acceptance of background noise, and release of cognitive load in a complex listening condition. However, it does not improve speech intelligibility. Studies that examined SMNR in the paediatric population suggest that SMNR may benefit older school-aged children, aged between 10 and 12 years old. The evidence supports the use of SMNR for adults and school-aged children when the aim is to improve listening comfort or reduce listening effort.
METHODS: We searched 3 major databases, i.e., PubMed, Embase and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Journals@Ovid, for studies published up until 1May 2013 without language restrictions. All study designs were included in this review. The studies were identified and retrieved by two independent authors.
RESULTS: Of 118 titles scanned, 14 duplicates were removed, and a total of 13 abstracts from all three databases were identified for full-text retrieval. From the full text, eight articles met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. These articles showed acceptable quality based on our scoring system. Most of the studies indicated that temporary threshold shifts were much lower when subjects were exposed to a noise level of 85 dBA or lower.
CONCLUSIONS: There were more threshold shifts in subjects adopting 90 dBA compared with 85 dBA. These temporary threshold shifts may progress to permanent shifts over time. Action curtailing noise exposure among employees would be taken earlier on adoption of 85 dBA as the permissible exposure limit, and hence prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss may be reduced.