Clarity Is Not Cheating: AI Hearing Aids, Access, and the Ethics of Outperforming Normal

TLDR:

Just because a child passes a hearing test doesn’t mean they understand what they’re hearing. AI-powered hearing aids and FM systems can give kids and adults with auditory processing issues a huge boost in clarity, focus, and learning. But they also raise ethical questions. What happens when the tech works so well that it outperforms “typical” hearing? Do we pull support? Is it fair to let neurodivergent kids succeed when the system wasn’t built for them in the first place? This post dives into why programming matters, why real-ear isn’t enough, and why clarity is not cheating. It is access.

⸻

Why Programming, AI, and Oversight Matter in Pediatric Hearing Care

Hearing aids, like AI, are powerful tools. But without professional guidance, they can cause more harm than good. Self-programming might seem convenient, but it is easy to get lost in the settings. You could accidentally amplify background noise, distort speech, or even create painful or damaging sound levels. It is like using AI with no guardrails. You might get lucky, or you might end up in the weeds, or worse, over a cliff.

That is why prescription fittings cost more. They involve higher-quality devices, which are more expensive for the audiologist to provide, and they require hours of testing, precise programming, and long-term follow-up. If you are considering hearing aids for your child, make sure the package includes support over time. Without it, you could be stuck when something changes, and something always does.

And yes, the devices themselves cost more. But hearing aids assigned to children, whether labeled as pediatric models or not, often come with long warranties that cover repair, breakage, and a one-time replacement for loss or theft, usually for up to five years. Pediatric models tend to be more defeatured and simplified, but many families opt for full-featured adult models programmed for children instead. In either case, the warranty coverage matters. Most packages also include ongoing office visits for reprogramming and support. Show me a car that comes with that.

Today, I saw a patient who had a clear drop in hearing due to aging. I was able to reprogram his devices on the spot. No replacement needed. But the bigger issue was that his hearing had become asymmetric. That is a major problem, especially for children. When sound is not balanced between ears, they can lose spatial awareness. They may hear a voice but not know where it is coming from, which affects safety, learning, and emotional regulation.

I once worked with a blind patient who had this exact issue. With no visual input and newly uneven hearing, they could no longer locate where things were in space. That kind of disorientation is not just frustrating. It can be dangerous. And in kids with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or chronic ear infections, this kind of fluctuation is common. One week they are fine, the next week they are not. If no one is tracking those changes, it can lead to regression, confusion, or even trauma.

This is exactly why over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids are not allowed for children. Adults are legally allowed to use things like alcohol or cigarettes. Children are not. Because they cannot fully understand the risks or manage the consequences. If something goes wrong with a child’s hearing aid, they are the ones who suffer. But they are not the ones responsible for that choice.

If a child ends up with noise damage, speech delays, or learning problems because someone guessed at the settings, who takes responsibility? This is not about access to gadgets. This is about medical care. Pediatric hearing aids require a prescription, a diagnosis, and someone who actually knows what they are doing. These devices are life-changing when used correctly. But when they are used without understanding, they can do real harm.

And trust me, I have seen some truly awful programming. Not because people did not care, but because there is almost no training on how to program for children with normal or near-normal hearing. Most audiology programs focus on hearing loss. They do not teach how to fine-tune clarity for kids with auditory processing issues. And yet clarity is everything.

Many audiologists rely on measurements at the eardrum. But that alone does not tell you what is happening in the middle ear, the cochlea, or the brain. What if the ear is full of fluid? What if one of the bones in the middle ear is not moving properly? What if the cochlea has damage that does not show up on a basic test because 20 percent of the hair cells are still working? What if the real problem is at the level of the auditory nerve, where the signal is not connecting reliably because of timing issues, like we see in auditory neuropathy?

They call real-ear measurement the gold standard, but it is not gold. It is fool’s gold. It shows you that the sound made it to the eardrum and matches a loudness curve. It does not tell you if that sound is usable, meaningful, or getting through in a way that helps the child process and respond.

And here’s the deeper problem. There is no target for normal-hearing children. There is no target for auditory processing disorder. There is no target for autism with sound sensitivity. There is no target for children with ADHD who are being pulled off task by every sound in the room. We are trying to treat clarity, not volume. We are supporting function, not matching a generic curve.

This is why you need a real specialist. Not just someone who lists it on their website. Not just someone who pops up in a search. Definitely not someone who put it in the Yellow Pages, assuming those still exist.

And just to be clear, I have actually worked with two children who were fit with over-the-counter hearing aids. In both cases, the parents already suspected it was risky. They knew it could potentially harm their child’s hearing, and they were right to be concerned. They came into the clinic and started a proper treatment trial instead.

I understand the impulse. When you are desperate for support and nobody is listening, you start looking for your own solutions. There are worse things to experiment with, but I would never recommend keeping OTC hearing aids on a child long-term. The risks are too high, and the benefit is too limited. These devices were not made for pediatric ears, pediatric needs, or pediatric brains.

That said, if I were going to try something short-term, I might consider the AirPods Pro. You can use the Live Listen feature through an iPhone to simulate basic FM capability, and you can limit the output to around 85 dB in the Apple settings. That makes it a much safer option than most OTC devices, at least for trial use.

Even the earbuds themselves provide a small amount of active noise reduction, which can help kids who are overwhelmed by environmental sound. In some cases, it may even work better than earplugs because it reduces the sharpness of external noise without completely cutting the child off from speech.

Still, it is a double-edged sword. Active noise reduction can also increase auditory deprivation if used too much or in the wrong context. It can make things quieter but not necessarily clearer. And for kids with auditory processing challenges, what they usually need is not less sound. It is better sound.

As of 2025, many modern hearing aids use artificial intelligence to make real-time decisions about what your child hears. They sort speech from noise, adjust microphone direction, and sometimes mask triggers like chewing or crowd noise. In kids with APD, autism, or ADHD, that can make the difference between meltdown and focus. These features are powerful. But they also raise real questions.

What happens when a hearing aid starts outperforming the typical brain? What if it gives a neurodivergent child better focus, better speech understanding, or clearer access to a teacher’s voice than their neurotypical peers? Is that an unfair advantage, or is it simply leveling the playing field?

Some say these tools give kids with diagnoses an edge in classrooms and testing environments. Others argue that these same kids started behind and are finally being brought up to speed. But if a child using AI hearing aids or FM technology ends up outperforming peers, should that be a concern? Or should we call it equity?

And what about adults?

I have worked with sign language interpreters who have technically normal hearing but still struggle with crowded spaces, fatigue, or distant speakers. Some have tried using FM systems to place a microphone directly on the person speaking, even across the room, and hear them from 50 feet away. Is that fair? They might be able to hear more clearly than a neurotypical interpreter without any support. But the result is better access for the d/Deaf client. So whose needs come first?

What about interpreters with APD or autism who have difficulty picking out speech in noise? If they use hearing aids or FM to manage their sensory environment, is that cheating? Or is it the only way they can do the job without burnout or error?

We do not ask professionals to leave their glasses at home to make it fair for others with perfect vision. We do not tell people in wheelchairs to slow down for those who are still on crutches. Why are we still debating access when it comes to hearing?

AI hearing aids can cost between $3,500 and $8,000 per pair. OTC options are more affordable, but kids cannot legally use them in school. Adults may worry they will be judged or told they do not qualify. So who gets access to clarity? Who gets tools, and who gets told to adapt?

And what happens when the support actually works?

If a student finally performs better with technology, do we take away their extended testing time? Do we pull the tutoring? Do we tell them they no longer need notes in advance, or access to the resource room? Do we strip away the accommodations that allowed them to thrive in the first place?

Is that what we mean by fairness?

Meanwhile, students who are considered typical are often expected to function without any of these supports, even when they are clearly struggling. We call it grit or independence. But what it really reflects is a failure to embrace universal design. We do not ask what all learners need. We ask who qualifies for what, and then we draw a line.

These are not just technical issues. They are ethical ones. If someone is failing to hear clearly, and we have the technology to help, do we hold it back out of fear that it might give them an edge? Or do we acknowledge that fairness is not about keeping everyone at the same level of struggle?

Clarity is not cheating. It is access.