Live Evaluation of Auditory Preference, a Laboratory Test for Evaluating Auditory Preference

Abstract

Background Many laboratory tests are performed under unrealistic conditions. Tasks, such as repeating words or sentences, are performed in simple loudspeaker setups. Currently, many research groups focus on realistic audiovisual laboratory setups. Fewer groups focus on the tasks performed during testing.

Purpose A semicontrolled laboratory test method focusing on the tasks performed, the Live Evaluation of Auditory Preference (LEAP) was evaluated. LEAP is developed to evaluate hearing-instrument performance in test scenarios that represent everyday listening situations.

Research Design LEAP was evaluated in a feasibility study. The method comprises conversations between a test participant and one or two test leaders, enabling evaluation of the test participant's own voice. The method allows for visual cues (when relevant) and introduce social pressure to participate in the conversation. In addition, other everyday listening tasks, such as watching television (TV) and listening to radio, are included. In this study, LEAP was used to assess preference for two hearing aid settings using paired comparisons.

Study Sample Nineteen experienced hearing aid users (13 females and 6 males; mean age 74 years), participated in the study.

Data Collection and Analysis LEAP was performed at three visits to the laboratory. In addition, participants conducted a field trial where the two hearing aid programs were compared using Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMA). During LEAP testing, six mandatory test cases were used, representing commonly occurring everyday listening situations. Individual test cases were also included, selected from individually experienced listening situations during the field trial. Within- and between-session reliability of the LEAP test was investigated. Validity was investigated by comparing the LEAP and the EMA results.

Results For the current signal-processing evaluation, the test was judged to have acceptable reliability and validity. The inclusion of individually selected test cases increased the representativeness of the LEAP test, but it did not substantially alter the results in the current study.

Conclusion LEAP in its current implementation seems suitable for investigating signal-processing preference in the laboratory in a way that is indicative of everyday preference. The LEAP method represents one step forward in bringing the real world into the laboratory.

Keywords

hearing aids - test scenario - paired comparisons - ecological momentary assessments

Note

The material has been presented at the International Hearing Aid Research Conference in Lake Tahoe, CA, during August 2018 (no proceedings). A pilot study has been presented at the International Congress on Acoustics in Aachen, Germany, November 2019. Smeds et al.[30]

Ethical Considerations

All data collection was performed in compliance with ethical treatment of participants in medical research. The participants signed informed consent documentation after receiving thorough written and oral information about the study. In particular, the field data collection, using smartphones and Google Forms, was described in detail. To ensure anonymity during the field trial, the test participants borrowed smartphones from ORCA Europe, and Google accounts were created without any personal information. The participants were paid 900 SEK (∼95 USD) and received two boxes of hearing aid batteries (120 batteries) for their participation.

Publication History

Received: 08 February 2021

Accepted: 10 May 2021

Article published online:
29 December 2021

• References

• 1 Keidser G, Naylor G, Brungart DS. et al. The quest for ecological validity in hearing science: What it is, why it matters, and how to advance it. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (Suppl. 01) 5S-19S
• 2 van Buuren RA, Festen JM, Plomp R. Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1995; 38 (01) 211-221
• 3 Naylor G. Theoretical issues of validity in the measurement of aided speech reception threshold in noise for comparing nonlinear hearing aid systems. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (07) 504-514
• 4 Brons I, Houben R, Dreschler WA. Effects of noise reduction on speech intelligibility, perceived listening effort, and personal preference in hearing-impaired listeners. Trends Hear 2014; 18: 1-10
• 5 Dahlquist M, Lutman ME, Wood S, Leijon A. Methodology for quantifying perceptual effects from noise suppression systems. Int J Audiol 2005; 44 (12) 721-732
• 6 Gabrielsson A, Sjögren H. Perceived sound quality of sound-reproducing systems. J Acoust Soc Am 1979; 65 (04) 1019-1033
• 7 ITU-R. Recommendation ITU-R BS.1284-2 (01/2019). General methods for the subjective assessment of sound quality. Accessed May 25,6, 2021 at: https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1284-2-201901-I!!PDF-E.pdf
• 8 Amlani AM, Schafer EC. Application of paired-comparison methods to hearing AIDS. Trends Amplif 2009; 13 (04) 241-259
• 9 Johnson EE. An initial-fit comparison of two generic hearing aid prescriptive methods (NAL-NL2 and CAM2) to individuals having mild to moderately severe high-frequency hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (02) 138-150
• 10 Moore BC, Füllgrabe C, Stone MA. Determination of preferred parameters for multichannel compression using individually fitted simulated hearing aids and paired comparisons. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (05) 556-568
• 11 Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8 (01) 27-43
• 12 Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (02) 176-186
• 13 Barker F, MacKenzie E, Elliott L, de Lusignan S. Outcome measurement in adult auditory rehabilitation: a scoping review of measures used in randomized controlled trials. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (05) 567-573
• 14 Bradburn NM, Rips LJ, Shevell SK. Answering autobiographical questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science 1987; 236 (4798): 157-161
• 15 Holube I, von Gablenz P, Bitzer J. Ecological momentary assessment in hearing research: current state, challenges, and future directions. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (Suppl. 01) 79S-90S
• 16 Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2008; 4: 1-32
• 17 Timmer BHB, Hickson L, Launer S. Ecological momentary assessment: Feasibility, construct validity, and future applications. Am J Audiol 2017; 26 (3S): 436-442
• 18 Wu YH, Stangl E, Zhang X, Bentler RA. Construct validity of the ecological momentary assessment in audiology research. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (10) 872-884
• 19 Keidser G. Introduction to special issue: Towards ecologically valid protocols for the assessment of hearing and hearing devices. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (07) 502-503
• 20 Grimm G, Kollmeier B, Hohmann V. Spatial acoustic scenarios in multichannel loudspeaker systems for hearing aid evaluation. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (07) 557-566
• 21 Oreinos C, Buchholz JM. Evaluation of loudspeaker-based virtual sound environments for testing directional hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (07) 541-556
• 22 Devesse A, van Wieringen A, Wouters J. AVATAR assesses speech understanding and multitask costs in ecologically relevant listening situations. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (03) 521-531
• 23 Hadley LV, Brimijoin WO, Whitmer WM. Speech, movement, and gaze behaviours during dyadic conversation in noise. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 10451
• 24 Hendrikse MME, Llorach G, Hohmann V, Grimm G. Movement and gaze behavior in virtual audiovisual listening environments resembling everyday life. Trends Hear 2019; 23: 2331216519872362
• 25 Hohmann V, Paluch R, Krueger M, Meis M, Grimm G. The virtual reality lab: realization and application of virtual sound environments. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (Suppl. 01) 31S-38S
• 26 Best V, Keidser G, Buchholz JM, Freeston K. Development and preliminary evaluation of a new test of ongoing speech comprehension. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (01) 45-52
• 27 Nelson P, Anderson E, Beechey T. (2019) Laboratory simulations of conversations scenarios: questionnaire results from patient and partner. 178th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Acoustical Society of America, San Diego, CA, United States.
• 28 Wolters F, Smeds K, Schmidt E, Christensen EK, Norup C. Common sound scenarios: a context-driven categorization of everyday sound environments for application in hearing-device research. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (07) 527-540
• 29 Smeds K, Gotowiec S, Wolters F, Herrlin P, Larsson J, Dahlquist M. Selecting scenarios for hearing-related laboratory testing. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (Suppl. 01) 20S-30S
• 30 Smeds K, Dahlquist M, Larsson J, Herrlin P, Wolters F. (2019) LEAP, a new laboratory test for evaluating auditory preference. In: Ochmann M, Vorländer M, Fels J. eds. 23rd International Congress on Acoustics (ICA),. Berlin, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Akustik, Aachen, Germany;
• 31 Bjerg AP, Larsen JN. Recording of natural sounds for hearing aid measurements and fitting. Accessed May 26, 2021 at: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/66391/1/Recording%20of%20Natural%20Sounds%20for%20Hearing%20Aid%20Measurements%20and%20Fitting.pdf
• 32 Smeds K, Wolters F, Rung M. Estimation of signal-to-noise ratios in realistic sound scenarios. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (02) 183-196
• 33 Wu YH, Stangl E, Chipara O, Hasan SS, Welhaven A, Oleson J. Characteristics of real-world signal to noise ratios and speech listening situations of older adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (02) 293-304
• 34 Leijon A, Dahlquist M, Smeds K. Bayesian analysis of paired-comparison sound quality ratings. J Acoust Soc Am 2019; 146 (05) 3174-3183
• 35 Punch JL, Rakerd B, Amlani AM. Paired-comparison hearing aid preferences: evaluation of an unforced-choice paradigm. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (04) 190-201
• 36 Byrne D, Cotton S. Evaluation of the National Acoustic Laboratories' new hearing aid selection procedure. J Speech Hear Res 1988; 31 (02) 178-186
• 37 Studebaker GA, Bisset JD, Van Ort DM, Hoffnung SU. Paired comparison judgments of relative intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1982; 72 (01) 80-92
• 38 Jensen NS, Hau O, Lelic D, Herrlin P, Wolters F, Smeds K. () Evaluation of auditory reality and hearing aids using an Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) approach. In: Ochmann M, Vorländer M, Fels J. eds. 23rd International Congress on Acoustics (ICA),. Berlin, Germany: 2019. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Akustik Aachen, Germany;
• 39 Klatte M, Lachmann T, Meis M. Effects of noise and reverberation on speech perception and listening comprehension of children and adults in a classroom-like setting. Noise Health 2010; 12 (49) 270-282
• 40 Adams MD, Bruce NS, Davies WJ. et al. (2008) Soundwalking as a methodology for understanding soundscapes. Accessed May 26, 2021 at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/2461/1/Adams_etal_2008_Soundwalking_as_Methodology.pdf