PP1326 - Priming Effects: Labeling Hearing Aids as “Professional” or “Over-the-Counter”

Abstract: The priming effect of labeling a hearing aid as "OTC" or "professional" was investigated with twenty hearing impaired participants, 10 of which were experienced hearing aid users and 10 naïve listeners with no previous hearing aid experience. The study measured speech-in-noise performance via the QuickSIN and gathered subjective ratings to assess the impact of the device label on the participant's listening experience. No statistically significant results were found, indicating that the device label alone does not have an effect on hearing aid user perceptions or hearing performance, but trends in the data point to avenues of further investigation.

Summary:

Previous research has shown that priming effects are measurable within hearing aid research and these effects not only have an impact on device preference, but also hearing performance. The recent release of FDA guidelines for OTC hearing aids has created an urgency to understand the impact of OTC devices on the hearing aid market. This study was designed to investigate the impact of OTC labeling on consumer behavior, perception and hearing performance.

Ten experienced hearing aid users and ten naïve listeners (defined as never having tried hearing aids) with mild-to-moderate hearing loss were recruited for this study. They were told they were participating in a research study comparing a “professional” hearing aid to an “OTC” hearing aid. In reality, the participants were wearing the same set of devices for both conditions. The participants completed a set of standardized questionnaires, the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory Screener (RHHI-S), the Expected Consequences of Hearing Aid Ownership (ECHO) questionnaire for the naïve listeners, the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire for the experienced hearing aid users, and the Big Five Personality Inventory (BFI). They were then fit with a set of RIC hearing aids programmed to a standard audiogram for moderate hearing loss (N3). The researcher primed the participant by providing a scripted definition of the device that provided one negative and one positive aspect for each label. The order of the labeling condition was randomized. The participants then listened to a live spoken passage in quiet and completed the QuickSIN, followed by a composite questionnaire to assess their subjective experience, which included questions such as perceived device performance, projections of device value for oneself and others, and expected cost for the device. They then repeated these measures for the other condition. After the completion of the repeated measures, the participants were asked for their device preference, a forced choice if they were to purchase a device today, and a projection if they would regret the purchase they chose in 3 months.  

A repeated measures ANOVA of the QuickSIN results shows no significant effect of the device label on speech-in-noise performance. Statistical analyses of the subjective measures also shows no significant effect of the device label. 

In this study, a priming effect as a result of labeling a hearing aid as “OTC” or “professional” was not found; however, other trends emerged in the data. These trends are not statistically significant, but point to potential avenues of further investigation. These trends are found amongst the outcome measure of purchasing regret and the QuickSIN, which shows a possible detriment to speech-in-noise performance when an experienced hearing aid user switches from personalized hearing aid programming to depersonalized programming (i.e. one’s own finely-tuned devices to a standard audiometric fit). In summary, while the priming effect of device labeling was not measurable in this study, the results generated additional research questions for the impact of OTC devices on consumer behavior and hearing performance.