Implementing Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiological Research: Opportunities and Challenges.

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a way to evaluate experiences in everyday life. It is a powerful research tool but can be complex and challenging for beginners. Application of EMA in audiological research brings with it opportunities and challenges that differ from other research disciplines. This tutorial discusses important considerations when conducting EMA studies in hearing care. While more research is needed to develop specific guidelines for the various potential applications of EMA in hearing research, we hope this article can alert hearing researchers new to EMA to pitfalls when using EMA and help strengthen their study design. The current article elaborates study design details, such as choice of participants, representativeness of the study period for participants' lives, and balancing participant burden with data requirements. Mobile devices and sensors to collect objective data on the acoustic situation are reviewed alongside different possibilities for EMA setups ranging from online questionnaires paired with a timer to proprietary apps that also have access to parameters of a hearing device. In addition to considerations for survey design, a list of questionnaire items from previous studies is provided. For each item, an example and a list of references are given. EMA typically provides data sets that are rich but also challenging in that they are noisy, and there is often unequal amount of data between participants. After recommendations on how to check the data for compliance, reactivity, and careless responses, methods for statistical analysis on the individual level and on the group level are discussed including special methods for direct comparison of hearing device programs.

How Individuals Shape Their Acoustic Environment: Implications for Hearing Aid Comparison in Ecological Momentary Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: When using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to compare different hearing aid programs, it is usually assumed that for sufficiently long study durations similar situations will be experienced in both programs. However, conscious or subconscious adaptation of situations to one's hearing ability (e.g., asking a conversation partner to speak up, increasing TV volume)-which might be different across the time spent in different hearing aid programs-may challenge this assumption. In the present study, we investigated how test participants modify their acoustic environment and if these modifications depend on the hearing program. DESIGN: Twenty-nine experienced hearing aid users were provided with hearing aids containing two hearing programs differing in directionality and noise reduction (NR). The hearing programs called NR-on and NR-off changed each day automatically. Over the course of 3 weeks, participants were asked to answer a questionnaire every time they encountered an acoustic situation they modified or would have liked to modify to improve the listening situation. Objective data on sound pressure level and classification of the acoustic situation were collected from the hearing aids. At the beginning of the study participants recollected modifications of the acoustic environments they typically do when using their own hearing aids and reported on the frequency of this behavior. RESULTS: During the field trial, participants reported on average 2.3 situations per day that they modified or would have liked to modify. Modifications were usually performed quickly after the onset of the situation and significantly improved the pleasantness of the listening situation. While the number of the reported situations did not differ between the programs, modifications increasing the volume of the target signal and increasing the hearing aid volume were more frequent for the NR-on hearing program. Changes in the objective data at the time of the modification were consistent with the reported modifications. Further, the usage time as well as the distribution of the acoustic situations over the entire study period differed between the two hearing programs. CONCLUSIONS: The large improvement in pleasantness due to the modification might explain the generally positive ratings observed in EMA studies. Furthermore, the results found here suggest that caution is needed when comparing ratings of audiological attributes in EMA, because the different modification behavior across hearing programs may lead to an underestimation of hearing problems and reduced sensitivity when comparing two technologies.

Measuring hearing aid satisfaction in everyday listening situations: Retrospective and in-situ assessments complement each other.

BACKGROUND: Recently, we developed a hearing-related lifestyle questionnaire (HEARLI-Q) which asks respondents to rate their hearing aid (HA) satisfaction in 23 everyday listening situations. It is unknown how HA satisfaction on the retrospective HEARLI-Q scale compares to HA satisfaction measured on the same scale implemented in Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMA). PURPOSE: To learn how retrospective (HEARLI-Q) and in-situ (EMA) assessments can complement each other. RESEARCH DESIGN: An observational study. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-one experienced HA users. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The participants first filled out the HEARLI-Q questionnaire, followed by a one-week EMA trial using their own hearing aids. HA satisfaction ratings were compared between the two questionnaires and the underlying drivers of discrepancies in HA satisfaction ratings were evaluated. RESULTS: HA satisfaction scores were significantly higher in EMA for speech communication with one or several people. Hearing difficulty in these situations was rated higher in HEARLI-Q than in EMA, but occurrence of those difficult listening situations was also rated to be lower. When comparing only the situations that occur on daily or weekly basis, the two questionnaires had similar HA satisfaction ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Lower occurrence of difficult listening situations seems to be the key driver of discrepancies in HA satisfaction ratings between EMA and HEARLI-Q. The advantage of EMA is that it provides insight into an individual's day-to-day life and is not prone to memory bias. HEARLI-Q, on the other hand, can capture situations which occur infrequently or are inconvenient to report in the moment. Administering HEARLI-Q and EMA in combination could give a more holistic view of HA satisfaction.

Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings.

Introduction: In past Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies, hearing aid outcome ratings have often been close to ceiling. Methods: To analyze the underlying reasons for the very positive ratings, we conducted a study with 17 experienced hearing aid wearers who were fitted with study hearing aids. The acceptable noise level and the noise level where participants were unable to follow speech were measured. The participants then rated hearing aid satisfaction, speech understanding and listening effort for pre-defined SNRs between -10 and +20 dB SPL in the laboratory. These ratings were compared to ratings of a two-week EMA trial. Additionally, estimates of SNRs were collected from hearing aids during the EMA trial and we assessed whether the participants experienced those SNRs rated poorly in the laboratory in real life. Results: The results showed that for hearing aid satisfaction and speech understanding, the full rating scale was used in the laboratory, while the ratings in real life were strongly skewed towards the positive end of the scale. In the laboratory, SNRs where participants indicated they could not follow the narrator ("unable to follow" noise level) were rated clearly better than the lowest possible ratings. This indicates that very negative ratings may not be applicable in real-life testing. The lower part of the distribution of real-life SNR estimates was related to participants' individual "unable to follow" noise levels and the SNRs which were rated poorly in the laboratory made up less than 10% of the speech situations experienced in real life. Discussion: This indicates that people do not seem to frequently experience listening situations at SNRs where they are dissatisfied with their hearing aids and this could be the reason for the overly positive hearing aid outcome ratings in EMA studies. It remains unclear to what extent the scarcity of such situations is due lack of encounters or intentional avoidance.

Evaluation of Hearing Aids in Everyday Life Using Ecological Momentary Assessment: What Situations Are We Missing?

Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method to evaluate hearing aids in everyday life that uses repeated smartphone-based questionnaires to assess a situation as it happens. Although being ecologically valid and avoiding memory bias, this method may be prone to selection biases due to questionnaires being skipped or the phone not being carried along in certain situations. Purpose This investigation analyzed which situations are underrepresented in questionnaire responses and physically measured objective EMA data (e.g., sound level), and how such underrepresentation may depend on different triggers. Method In an EMA study, 20 subjects with hearing impairment provided daily information on reasons for missed data, that is, skipped questionnaires or missing connections between their phone and hearing aids. Results Participants often deliberately did not bring the study phone to social situations or skipped questionnaires because they considered it inappropriate, for example, during church service or when engaging in conversation. They answered fewer questions in conversations with multiple partners and were more likely to postpone questionnaires when not in quiet environments. Conclusion Data for social situations will likely be underrepresented in EMA. However, these situations are particularly important for the evaluation of hearing aids, as individuals with hearing impairment often have difficulties communicating in noisy situations. Thus, it is vital to optimize the design of the study to find a balance between avoiding memory bias and enabling subjects to report retrospectively on situations where phone usage may be difficult. The implications for several applications of EMA are discussed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12746849.

Optimality of human contour integration.

For processing and segmenting visual scenes, the brain is required to combine a multitude of features and sensory channels. It is neither known if these complex tasks involve optimal integration of information, nor according to which objectives computations might be performed. Here, we investigate if optimal inference can explain contour integration in human subjects. We performed experiments where observers detected contours of curvilinearly aligned edge configurations embedded into randomly oriented distractors. The key feature of our framework is to use a generative process for creating the contours, for which it is possible to derive a class of ideal detection models. This allowed us to compare human detection for contours with different statistical properties to the corresponding ideal detection models for the same stimuli. We then subjected the detection models to realistic constraints and required them to reproduce human decisions for every stimulus as well as possible. By independently varying the four model parameters, we identify a single detection model which quantitatively captures all correlations of human decision behaviour for more than 2000 stimuli from 42 contour ensembles with greatly varying statistical properties. This model reveals specific interactions between edges closely matching independent findings from physiology and psychophysics. These interactions imply a statistics of contours for which edge stimuli are indeed optimally integrated by the visual system, with the objective of inferring the presence of contours in cluttered scenes. The recurrent algorithm of our model makes testable predictions about the temporal dynamics of neuronal populations engaged in contour integration, and it suggests a strong directionality of the underlying functional anatomy.

Inferring the role of inhibition in auditory processing of complex natural stimuli.

Intracellular studies have revealed the importance of cotuned excitatory and inhibitory inputs to neurons in auditory cortex, but typical spectrotemporal receptive field models of neuronal processing cannot account for this overlapping tuning. Here, we apply a new nonlinear modeling framework to extracellular data recorded from primary auditory cortex (A1) that enables us to explore how the interplay of excitation and inhibition contributes to the processing of complex natural sounds. The resulting description produces more accurate predictions of observed spike trains than the linear spectrotemporal model, and the properties of excitation and inhibition inferred by the model are furthermore consistent with previous intracellular observations. It can also describe several nonlinear properties of A1 that are not captured by linear models, including intensity tuning and selectivity to sound onsets and offsets. These results thus offer a broader picture of the computational role of excitation and inhibition in A1 and support the hypothesis that their interactions play an important role in the processing of natural auditory stimuli.