WSA's research highlights that up to 40 percent of listeners have a strong and consistent sound processing preference. What are the key insights behind the 20-60-20 segmentation, and how should clinicians interpret this in practice?

The 20-60-20 framework is perhaps the most practically useful thing to come out of this research. Across two separate studies, one large-scale online study with 248 participants and a real-world guided-walk study with 28 experienced hearing aid users, we consistently found that around 40 percent of listeners showed a strong preference for one sound design over another (half favouring a natural, balanced sound, and half preferring a more enhanced, speech-forward sound). The remaining 60% were flexible, performing well with either approach.

For clinicians, the practical implication is straightforward. When a new patient walks in, you cannot tell from their audiogram, their age, or their lifestyle questionnaire which group they belong to. The only reliable way to identify a strong preference is to expose them to both sound designs. For the 60 percent in the middle, this broadens fitting options. For the 20 percent on each end, getting it right from the outset has real consequences for acclimatization, satisfaction, and long-term use.

Sound Preference does not replace the clinical expertise and best practice protocols that hearing care professionals already apply. What Sound Preference does is It adds a dimension that sits on top of them, giving clinicians a more complete picture of the individual in front of them.

Why has sound preference remained an underexplored dimension in hearing aid fitting until now, despite advancements in technology?

It hasn’t been ignored, exactly. Experienced clinicians have always known that some patients respond very differently to the same device, even when the fitting is technically correct. What has been missing is a structured framework and shared language for discussing and acting on that observation. The profession has tended to attribute these differences to acclimatization time or simply accepted them as part of the subjective side of fitting.

Part of the reason this is coming to the surface now is that the technology debate has largely matured. Most well-fitted, high-end hearing aids today deliver good audibility and intelligibility. The competitive frontier has shifted. The question is no longer whether a device works, but whether it feels right to the individual wearing it. That shift in focus has created the conditions for sound preference to be taken seriously as a clinical variable. The other factor is that WSA holds a unique position: we operate two distinct sound philosophies under one roof. This gave us a research environment most of the industry doesn’t have. 

How do Widex and Signia, as distinct technology platforms, enable a more evidence-based and personalised approach to fitting compared to conventional methods?

Widex and Signia are built on fundamentally different signal processing architectures. Widex uses time-domain processing, which is modelled on the logarithmic organisation of the human cochlea. It prioritises low processing delay and preserves the natural texture of a sound environment. Signia uses frequency-domain processing, applying high-resolution parallel filters that deliver greater processing power and sharper speech contrast, particularly in demanding listening situations.

These are not just different products; they represent genuinely different sound philosophies. Most hearing aid companies have one. We have two. That means we can study preference between two well-developed and clinically validated approaches and then deliver the preferred design to the patient. 

In the context of Asia Pacific, where ageing populations and access gaps are pronounced, how can personalised hearing care models improve both adoption and long-term adherence?

The numbers across APAC are significant. We have rapidly ageing populations in Japan, Korea, China, and parts of Southeast Asia, combined with large segments of the population who have never engaged with hearing care at all. The conventional response has been to focus on access and affordability, which matters enormously. But access alone does not solve adoption. A patient who receives a device that does not feel right is likely to stop using it, which undermines the entire investment in getting them to that point.

What the Sound Preference research tells us is that personalisation is not a premium feature. It is essential and a core determinant of whether a patient continues their hearing care journey. In markets like India and China, where stigma around hearing loss remains a real barrier, the conversation that Sound Preference enables, one that focuses on the patient's preferences rather than their deficits, has cultural relevance beyond the clinical benefit. 

What have early pilot programmes, particularly in Australia, revealed about the impact of incorporating sound preference earlier in the fitting journey?

The Australian pilot was modest in scope, and I think that actually makes the findings more credible. Twenty hearing care professionals were given a simple intervention: they introduced the idea that sound preference is personal, and told patients that if they were not satisfied, they could return and try a different sound approach. No new diagnostic tools or extended consultation time. 

The results were striking. 90% of clinicians said it improved the clinical conversation. 75% reported better patient outcomes and 60% saw higher sales and fewer returns. Our researchers are careful to note these were clinician perceptions, not controlled outcome data. But the consistency across those responses show that by simply giving patients a framework to understand their own preferences, and permission to act on them, changes their engagement with the process.

From a broader public health perspective, how can the industry accelerate awareness and behavioural change to ensure more individuals complete their hearing care journey?

Roughly half of people who begin a hearing care journey do not complete it. That is a problem for the industry and a public health failure. The conventional response has been to improve technology, which we continue to do. But this research points to a different lever. If a significant proportion of drop-outs are leaving because the sound does not feel right to them, and if that can be identified and addressed earlier, the intervention is clinical rather than technological.

From a public health standpoint, I think the industry needs to shift how it frames hearing care. For too long, the conversation has centred on hearing loss as a deficit, something that needs to be corrected. This approach creates resistance, particularly in cultures across APAC where seeking help is associated with vulnerability. Sound Preference allows us to reframe the conversation around individual experience and personal choice.