Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT05054816

Speech Locator In-car Performance Evaluation

Listeners will conduct sound quality ratings of recordings talkers in a moving car processed using three different microphone processing strategies: an investigational adaptive directional microphone, an omnidirectional microphone and a fixed directional microphone. Participants will listen to the recordings streamed via commercially-available and individually-prescribed hearing aids, and conduct ratings onsite in the lab. The procedure will involve a training session and within-subject repeated measures. Stimuli will be randomized.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Hearing Loss Ear Diseases Hearing Disorders Nervous System Diseases Neurologic Manifestations Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms Sensation Disorders Signs and Symptoms

Age range

18 year–99 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Sonova Innovation Centre Toronto

Mississauga, Ontario, L5L1J3, Canada

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Adults (18-99 years) with ≥3 months hearing aid experience
  • binaural, symmetric, sensorineural N2 (mild) to N5 (severe) hearing loss
  • fluent in English

Exclusion criteria

  • children/teenagers
  • normal hearing or hearing loss exceeding N5 (severe) by 10 dB

Treatment and study plan

Investigational adaptive directional microphone strategy

Device

A receiver-in-canal hearing aid developed by the Study Sponsor used with the investigational adaptive directional microphone strategy that is expected to improve sound quality of speech in a car.

Comparator omnidirectional microphone strategy

Device

A receiver-in-canal hearing aid developed by the Study Sponsor used with the comparator omnidirectional microphone strategy that is used with the default settings as specified in the manufacturer's fitting software.

Comparator fixed directional microphone strategy

Device

A receiver-in-canal hearing aid developed by the Study Sponsor used with the comparator fixed directional microphone strategy that is used with the default settings as specified in the manufacturer's fitting software.

Primary outcomes

  1. Speech Clarity

    Time frame: Up to 6 hours over 3 2-hour sessions

    The sound quality ratings will be conducted via a computer-based questionnaire that contains sound samples that participants listen to and rate. Sound quality rating scales are continuous and range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with 5 descriptors unique to the dimension at 5 intervals on the scale (0, 25, 50, 75, 100)

    Participants will be instructed to "Please rate the clarity of speech". Speech clarity ratings will be measured on a 100-point continuous slider from worst to best (0-Very unclear, 25- Unclear, 50-Slightly clear, 75-Clear, 100-Very clear). Speech clarity ratings are expected to be impacted by how intelligible the speech is. Participants will rate and compare speech clarity between the investigational and comparator features.

  2. Noise Annoyance

    Time frame: Up to 6 hours over 3 2-hour sessions

    The sound quality ratings will be conducted via a computer-based questionnaire that contains sound samples that participants listen to and rate. Sound quality rating scales are continuous and range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with 5 descriptors unique to the dimension at 5 intervals on the scale (0, 25, 50, 75, 100)

    Participants will be instructed to "Please rate how annoying the noise is". Noise annoyance ratings will be measured on a 100-point continuous slider from worst to best (0- Extremely annoying, 25-Very annoying, 50-Moderately annoying, 75-Slightly annoying, 100-Not at all annoying). Noise annoyance ratings are expected to be impacted by how bothersome the background noise in the recordings is. Participants will rate and compare noise annoyance between the investigational and comparator features.

  3. Spatialization

    Time frame: Up to 6 hours over 3 2-hour sessions

    The sound quality ratings will be conducted via a computer-based questionnaire that contains sound samples that participants listen to and rate. Sound quality rating scales are continuous and range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with 5 descriptors unique to the dimension at 5 intervals on the scale (0, 25, 50, 75, 100)

    Participants will be instructed to "Please rate your confidence that the talker is in [a location]", with the local being either passenger of rear left. Spatialization ratings will be measured on a 100-point continuous slider from worst to best (0-I don't know where the talker is, 25-The talker might be to my [location], 50-The talker is probably to my [location], 75-The talker is to my [location], 100-The talker is definitely to my [location]). Spatialization ratings are expected to be impacted by how well the recordings preserve spatial perception. Participants will rate and compare spatialization between the investigational and comparator features.

  4. Transition Annoyance

    Time frame: Up to 6 hours over 3 2-hour sessions

    The sound quality ratings will be conducted via a computer-based questionnaire that contains sound samples that participants listen to and rate. Sound quality rating scales are continuous and range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with 5 descriptors unique to the dimension at 5 intervals on the scale (0, 25, 50, 75, 100)

    Participants will be instructed to "Please rate how annoying the transitions are". Transitions annoyance ratings will be measured on a 100-point continuous slider from worst to best (0-Extremely annoying, 25-Very annoying, 50-Moderately annoying, 75-Slightly annoying, 100-Not at all annoying). Transition annoyance ratings are expected to be influenced by presence of unexpected sounds or transitions that occur in different microphone modes and different listening situations. Participants will rate and compare transition annoyance between the investigational and comparator features.

  5. Overall Impression

    Time frame: Up to 6 hours over 3 2-hour sessions

    The sound quality ratings will be conducted via a computer-based questionnaire that contains sound samples that participants listen to and rate. Sound quality rating scales are continuous and range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with 5 descriptors unique to the dimension at 5 intervals on the scale (0, 25, 50, 75, 100)

    Participants will be instructed to "All things considered, please rate overall preferences". Overall preferences ratings will be measured on a 100-point continuous slider from worst to best (0-Bad, 25-Poor, 50-Fair, 75-Good, 100-Excellent). Overall impression ratings are expected to be impacted by participants' overall preferences for the different stimuli. Participants will rate and compare overall impression between the investigational and comparator features.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Sonova AG

Industry

Collaborators

  • Sonova Canada Inc.

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2022
Primary completion
2022
Study completion
2022
First posted
Sep 23, 2021
Registry last updated
Aug 17, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.