Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Multiple Comparison Tests01:13

Multiple Comparison Tests

4.4K
Multiple comparison test, abbreviated as MCT, is a post hoc analysis generally performed after comparing multiple samples with one or more tests. An MCT will help identify a significantly different sample among multiple samples or a factor among multiple factors.
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
4.4K
Friedman Two-way Analysis of Variance by Ranks01:21

Friedman Two-way Analysis of Variance by Ranks

471
Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks is a nonparametric test designed to identify differences across multiple test attempts when traditional assumptions of normality and equal variances do not apply. Unlike conventional ANOVA, which requires normally distributed data with equal variances, Friedman's test is ideal for ordinal or non-normally distributed data, making it particularly useful for analyzing dependent samples, such as matched subjects over time or repeated measures...
471
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups01:20

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

541
Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and...
541
Group Design02:01

Group Design

10.1K
The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between...
10.1K
Sign Test for Matched Pairs01:17

Sign Test for Matched Pairs

373
The sign test for matched pairs offers a robust method for comparing two paired samples, often for the effects of an intervention in one of them. This method is very useful in situations where the underlying distribution of the data is unknown. The test compares two related samples—often pre- and post-treatment measurements on the same subjects—to determine if there are significant differences in their median values.
To conduct the sign test, we first calculate the differences in...
373
Bonferroni Test01:10

Bonferroni Test

3.3K
The Bonferroni test is a statistical test named after Carlo Emilio Bonferroni, an Italian mathematician best known for Bonferroni inequalities. This statistical test is a type of multiple comparison test to determine which means are different than the rest. Bonferroni test can minimize the Type 1 error by reducing the significance level alpha, which otherwise increases with sample pairs.
The means of different samples are first paired in all possible combinations.
The null hypothesis of the...
3.3K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Emotional responses to environmental sounds: associations with self‑reported well‑being in adults reporting minimal hearing difficulties, some hearing difficulties, and hearing aid use.

International journal of audiology·2026
Same author

Emotional Response to Pleasant Sounds Plays a Role in the Effectiveness of the Positive Focus Intervention.

Trends in hearing·2026
Same author

Responses to listening difficulty in in-person conversation: a survey-based synthesis of communication strategies used by people with hearing loss, communication partners, and hearing-care professionals.

International journal of audiology·2025
Same author

Influence of hearing aid processing on acoustic features associated with emotional speech: Acoustic analyses and perception by listeners with normal hearing.

JASA express letters·2025
Same author

Self-reported conversation success in groups involving adults with normal and impaired hearing.

International journal of audiology·2025
Same author

Effective Design for Experiments on Small-Group Conversation: Insights From an Example Study.

American journal of audiology·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 10, 2026

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages
06:04

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Published on: March 24, 2023

736

Methods for comparing hearing-aid programs in group conversations: paired comparisons and ratings.

P Herrlin1, F Marmel1, F Wolters1

  • 1ORCA Labs, Stockholm, Sweden.

International Journal of Audiology
|November 21, 2025
PubMed
Summary

Paired comparisons and ratings effectively evaluated hearing aid programs in group conversations. The paired comparison method proved more effective for identifying individual differences in hearing aid performance.

Keywords:
Hearing aidsgroup conversationspaired comparisonsratingsrealism

More Related Videos

A Two-interval Forced-choice Task for Multisensory Comparisons
07:13

A Two-interval Forced-choice Task for Multisensory Comparisons

Published on: November 9, 2018

11.4K
Behavioral Assessment of Hearing in 2 to 4 Year-old Children: A Two-interval, Observer-based Procedure Using Conditioned Play-based Responses
14:05

Behavioral Assessment of Hearing in 2 to 4 Year-old Children: A Two-interval, Observer-based Procedure Using Conditioned Play-based Responses

Published on: January 23, 2017

29.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 10, 2026

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages
06:04

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Published on: March 24, 2023

736
A Two-interval Forced-choice Task for Multisensory Comparisons
07:13

A Two-interval Forced-choice Task for Multisensory Comparisons

Published on: November 9, 2018

11.4K
Behavioral Assessment of Hearing in 2 to 4 Year-old Children: A Two-interval, Observer-based Procedure Using Conditioned Play-based Responses
14:05

Behavioral Assessment of Hearing in 2 to 4 Year-old Children: A Two-interval, Observer-based Procedure Using Conditioned Play-based Responses

Published on: January 23, 2017

29.6K

Area of Science:

  • Audiology
  • Hearing Science
  • Psychophysics

Background:

  • Evaluating hearing aid performance in real-world listening situations is crucial.
  • Traditional methods may not fully capture user experience in dynamic environments.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the effectiveness of paired comparisons and ratings for evaluating two hearing aid programs.
  • To assess these methods in live group conversation settings.

Main Methods:

  • 27 experienced hearing aid users with moderate hearing loss participated.
  • Participants engaged in live group conversations using binaural hearing aids with two directionality programs.
  • Paired comparisons and post-conversation ratings were used to assess hearing aid function, ease of communication, and conversation flow.

Main Results:

  • Both methods yielded consistent results, with the preferred program in paired comparisons also receiving higher ratings.
  • Paired comparisons were more effective at detecting differences between hearing aid programs at both population and individual levels.
  • Conversation flow ratings were generally high across both methods.

Conclusions:

  • Both paired comparison and rating methods are suitable for evaluating hearing aid settings during live group conversations.
  • The paired comparison method offers slightly higher sensitivity in detecting differences between hearing aid programs.
  • User experience regarding conversation flow is positive with tested hearing aid settings.