I agree, the study referenced was very scientific and daunting.

I'll share a bit of my personal experience with hearing loss. (again. :)) When I was diagnosed with progressive sensorineural hearing loss I was a 21 year old college student. I was examined and tested by the best known ENT specialists of that time (1962). The diagnosis was right but there was virtually nothing that could be done. I was told I'd be deaf by age 40. No hope. No help. Nothing. Nothing because at that time there was nothing that could be done. Hearing aids were amplifiers only and were not recommended. I did eventually get them because I was desperate.
A couple of innovative researchers were starting to think outside the box at that time. Then it was typical to tell people with hearing issues that their auditory nerve was dead or dying. That was the prevailing belief. Most researchers considered the inner ear to be an unreachable, untreatable part of the brain. It was inaccessible. Period. All research being done was on cadavers. Further, there was no funding for in depth research in this area then.

The National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) wasn't established until 1988. All the other Institutes within the National Institute of Health had been in place for a century. The Hearing Loss Assn. of America which was founded in 1979 as Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc. (SHHH) was largely behind getting NIDCD legislated for. SHHH insisted that people with 'partial deafness' (The hard of hearing population) would be included in research efforts. SHHH was the first organization ever to focus on the people who are not deaf but who do not hear well.

In the late 60s 7 early 70s a handful of researchers were looking at the physical realities of the inner ear. They contemplated how the brain received sound signals via the inner ear. They believed that if the brain could be stimulated in some way that people with hearing loss might be able to hear sounds. That was the beginning of the concept of cochlear implants. For information Google Dr. William House (California) and Dr. Graeme Clark (Australia).

Their research over time led to the knowledge that in most cases, the auditory nerve is not dead or dying. It is not getting stimulated by the tiny cells in the inner ear/cochlea, so sounds are not reaching the brain for interpretation. (It's rather fascinating and worth looking up.)

True to diagnosis, my hearing continued to deteriorate. I had hearing aids that helped a little, but the help from them got less and less. As an active member of SHHH then, I watched fellow SHHH members volunteer to be implanted. As time passed, the success rate improved and people who were profoundly hard of hearing were hearing better than I was. I decided to go for it in 2005. My only regret was not doing it sooner. Yes, I had the benefit of more research and improvements in technology. And I continue to benefit from those improvements as each external processor that works with the original implanted device works better than the one before it.

Recently, the criteria to qualify for cochlear implantation has been changed to include people with less profound hearing loss, and even those with single sided deafness. I expect we will see more people going for the implant option in the future. It's not a 'cure', but it's a medical miracle.

NOTE: Cochlear implants are generally covered by Medicare and most insurance companies. Hearing aids are not covered by many insurance companies, and are not covered by Medicare.

Again, I have to credit SHHH/HLAA for the advocacy and education the organization has done over the years that has made it possible for people with partial deafness to be included in research and in the progress of technology. We want to hear.