Predicting Individual Hearing-Aid Preference From Self-Reported Listening Experiences in Daily Life.

OBJECTIVES: The study compared the utility of two approaches for collecting real-world listening experiences to predict hearing-aid preference: a retrospective questionnaire (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale [SSQ]) and in-situ Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA). The rationale being that each approach likely provides different and yet complementary information. In addition, it was examined how self-reported listening activity and hearing-aid data-logging can augment EMAs for individualized and contextualized hearing outcome assessments. DESIGN: Experienced hearing-aid users (N = 40) with mild-to-moderate symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss completed the SSQ questionnaire and gave repeated EMAs for two wear periods of 2-weeks each with two different hearing-aid models that differed mainly in their noise reduction technology. The EMAs were linked to a self-reported listening activity and sound environment parameters (from hearing-aid data-logging) recorded at the time of EMA completion. Wear order was randomized by hearing-aid model. Linear mixed-effects models and Random Forest models with five-fold cross-validation were used to assess the statistical associations between listening experiences and end-of-trial preferences, and to evaluate how accurately EMAs predicted preference within individuals. RESULTS: Only 6 of the 49 SSQ items significantly discriminated between responses made for the end-of-trial preferred versus nonpreferred hearing-aid model. For the EMAs, questions related to perception of the sound from the hearing aids were all significantly associated with preference, and these associations were strongest in EMAs completed in sound environments with predominantly low SNR and listening activities related to television, people talking, nonspecific listening, and music listening. Mean differences in listening experiences from SSQ and EMA correctly predicted preference in 71.8% and 72.5% of included participants, respectively. However, a prognostic classification of single EMAs into end-of-trial preference with a Random Forest model achieved a 93.8% accuracy when contextual information was included. CONCLUSIONS: SSQ and EMA predicted preference equally well when considering mean differences, however, EMAs had a high prognostic classifications accuracy due to the repeated-measures nature, which make them ideal for individualized hearing outcome investigations, especially when responses are combined with contextual information about the sound environment.

Evaluating Real-World Benefits of Hearing Aids With Deep Neural Network-Based Noise Reduction: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study.

PURPOSE: Noise reduction technologies in hearing aids provide benefits under controlled conditions. However, differences in their real-life effectiveness are not established. We propose that a deep neural network (DNN)-based noise reduction system trained on naturalistic sound environments will provide different real-life benefits compared to traditional systems. METHOD: Real-life listening experiences collected with Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMAs) of participants who used two premium models of hearing aid are compared. One hearing aid model (HA1) used traditional noise reduction; the other hearing aid model (HA2) used DNN-based noise reduction. Participants reported listening experiences several times a day while ambient SPL, SNR, and hearing aid volume adjustments were recorded. Forty experienced hearing aid users completed a total of 3,614 EMAs and recorded 6,812 hr of sound data across two 14-day wear periods. RESULTS: Linear mixed-effects analysis document that participants' assessments of ambient noisiness were positively associated with SPL and negatively associated with SNR but were not otherwise affected by hearing aid model. Likewise, mean satisfaction with the two models did not differ. However, individual satisfaction ratings for HA1 were dependent on ambient SNR, which was not the case for HA2. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing aids with DNN-based noise reduction resulted in consistent sound satisfaction regardless of the level of background noise compared to hearing aids implementing noise reduction based on traditional statistical models. While the two hearing aid models also differed on other parameters (e.g., shape), these differences are unlikely to explain the difference in how background noise impacts sound satisfaction with the aids. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25114526.

Toward a Real-World Technical Test Battery for Remote Microphone Systems Used with Hearing Prostheses.

Remote microphones (RMs) enable clearer reception of speech than would be normally achievable when relying on the acoustic sound field at the listener's ear (Hawkins, J Sp Hear Disord 49, 409-418, 1984). They are used in a wide range of environments, with one example being for children in educational settings. The international standards defining the assessment methods of the technical performance of RMs rely on free-field (anechoic) delivery, a rarely met acoustic scenario. Although some work has been offered on more real-world testing (Husstedt et al., Int J Audiol 61, 34-45. 2022), the area remains under-investigated. The electroacoustic performance of five RMs in a low-reverberation room was compared in order to assess just the RM link, rather than measurements at the end of the signal chain, for example, speech intelligibility in human observers. It pilots physical- and electro-acoustic measures to characterize the performance of RMs. The measures are based on those found in the IEC 60118 standards relating to hearing aids, but modified for diffuse-field delivery, as well as adaptive signal processing. Speech intelligibility and quality are assessed by computer models. Noise bands were often processed into irrelevance by adaptive systems that could not be deactivated. Speech-related signals were more successful. The five RMs achieved similar levels of good predicted intelligibility, for each of two background noise levels. The main difference observed was in the transmission delay between microphone and ear. This ranged between 40 and 50 ms in two of the systems, on the upper edge of acceptability necessary for audio-visual synchrony.

Perceived Sound Quality of Hearing Aids With Varying Placements of Microphone and Receiver.

PURPOSE: Perceived sound quality was variously compared between either no aiding or aiding with three models of hearing aid that varied the microphone position around the pinna, depth of the receiver in the auditory meatus, degree of meatal occlusion, and processing sophistication. The hearing aids were modern designs and commercially available at the time of testing. METHOD: Binaural recordings of multichannel spatially separated speech and music excerpts were made in a manikin, either open ear or aided. Recordings were presented offline over wide-bandwidth, high-quality insert earphones. Participants listened to pairs of the recordings and made preference ratings both by clarity and externality (a proxy for "spaciousness"). Two separate groups of adults were tested, 20 with audiometrically normal hearing (NH) and 20 with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss (hearing impaired [HI]). RESULTS: For ratings of speech clarity, the NH group expressed no preference between the open ear and a deeply inserted occluding aid, both of which were preferred to a low-pass filtered output of the same aid. For the music signal, a small preference emerged for the open-ear recording over that of the aid. For the HI group, clarity of the deeply inserted aid was similar to in-the-ear and behind-the-ear devices for speech, but worse for music. Ratings of spaciousness produced no clear result in either group, which can be attributed to study limitations and/or participant factors. CONCLUSION: Based on clarity, a wide bandwidth, particularly to beyond 5 kHz generally and below 300 Hz for music, is desirable, independent of hearing aid design.

Threshold Equalizing Noise Test Reveals Suprathreshold Loss of Hearing Function, Even in the "Normal" Audiogram Range.

OBJECTIVES: The threshold equalizing noise (TEN(HL)) is a clinically administered test to detect cochlear "dead regions" (i.e., regions of loss of inner hair cell [IHC] connectivity), using a "pass/fail" criterion based on the degree of elevation of a masked threshold in a tone-detection task. With sensorineural hearing loss, some elevation of the masked threshold is commonly observed but usually insufficient to create a "fail" diagnosis. The experiment reported here investigated whether the gray area between pass and fail contained information that correlated with factors such as age or cumulative high-level noise exposure (>100 dBA sound pressure levels), possibly indicative of damage to cochlear structures other than the more commonly implicated outer hair cells. DESIGN: One hundred and twelve participants (71 female) who underwent audiometric screening for a sensorineural hearing loss, classified as either normal or mild, were recruited. Their age range was 32 to 74 years. They were administered the TEN test at four frequencies, 0.75, 1, 3, and 4 kHz, and at two sensation levels, 12 and 24 dB above their pure-tone absolute threshold at each frequency. The test frequencies were chosen to lie either distinctly away from, or within, the 2 to 6 kHz region where noise-induced hearing loss is first clinically observed as a notch in the audiogram. Cumulative noise exposure was assessed by the Noise Exposure Structured Interview (NESI). Elements of the NESI also permitted participant stratification by music experience. RESULTS: Across all frequencies and testing levels, a strong positive correlation was observed between elevation of TEN threshold and absolute threshold. These correlations were little-changed even after noise exposure and music experience were factored out. The correlations were observed even within the range of "normal" hearing (absolute thresholds ≤15 dB HL). CONCLUSIONS: Using a clinical test, sensorineural hearing deficits were observable even within the range of clinically "normal" hearing. Results from the TEN test residing between "pass" and "fail" are dominated by processes not related to IHCs. The TEN test for IHC-related function should therefore only be considered for its originally designed function, to generate a binary decision, either pass or fail.

FreeHear: A New Sound-Field Speech-in-Babble Hearing Assessment Tool.

Pure-tone threshold audiometry is currently the standard test of hearing. However, in everyday life, we are more concerned with listening to speech of moderate loudness and, specifically, listening to a particular talker against a background of other talkers. FreeHear delivers strings of three spoken digits (0-9, not 7) against a background babble via three loudspeakers placed in front and to either side of a listener. FreeHear is designed as a rapid, quantitative initial assessment of hearing using an adaptive algorithm. It is designed especially for children and for testing listeners who are using hearing devices. In this first report on FreeHear, we present developmental considerations and protocols and results of testing 100 children (4-13 years old) and 23 adults (18-30 years old). Two of the six 4 year olds and 91% of all older children completed full testing. Speech reception threshold (SRT) for digits and noise colocated at 0° or separated by 90° both improved linearly across 4 to 12 years old by 6 to 7 dB, with a further 2 dB improvement for the adults. These data suggested full maturation at approximately 15 years old SRTs at 90° digits/noise separation were better by approximately 6 dB than SRTs colocated at 0°. This spatial release from masking did not change significantly across age. Test-retest reliability was similar for children and adults (standard deviation of 2.05-2.91 dB SRT), with a mean practice improvement of 0.04-0.98 dB. FreeHear shows promise as a clinical test for both children and adults. Further trials in people with hearing impairment are ongoing.