Ecological Momentary Assessment to Obtain Signal Processing Technology Preference in Cochlear Implant Users.
BEAM
EMA
ForwardFocus
acoustic environment
cochlear implant
ecological momentary assessment
hearing in noise
signal processing
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 May 2022
23 May 2022
Historique:
received:
05
04
2022
revised:
13
05
2022
accepted:
20
05
2022
entrez:
28
5
2022
pubmed:
29
5
2022
medline:
29
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess the performance of cochlear implant users, speech comprehension benefits are generally measured in controlled sound room environments of the laboratory. For field-based assessment of preference, questionnaires are generally used. Since questionnaires are typically administered at the end of an experimental period, they can be inaccurate due to retrospective recall. An alternative known as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has begun to be used for clinical research. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of using EMA to obtain in-the-moment responses from cochlear implant users describing their technology preference in specific acoustic listening situations. Over a two-week period, eleven adult cochlear implant users compared two listening programs containing different sound processing technologies during everyday take-home use. Their task was to compare and vote for their preferred program. A total of 205 votes were collected from acoustic environments that were classified into six listening scenes. The analysis yielded different patterns of voting among the subjects. Two subjects had a consistent preference for one sound processing technology across all acoustic scenes, three subjects changed their preference based on the acoustic scene, and six subjects had no conclusive preference for either technology. Results show that EMA is suitable for quantifying real-world self-reported preference, showing inter-subject variability in different listening environments. However, there is uncertainty that patients will not provide sufficient spontaneous feedback. One improvement for future research is a participant forced prompt to improve response rates.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To assess the performance of cochlear implant users, speech comprehension benefits are generally measured in controlled sound room environments of the laboratory. For field-based assessment of preference, questionnaires are generally used. Since questionnaires are typically administered at the end of an experimental period, they can be inaccurate due to retrospective recall. An alternative known as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has begun to be used for clinical research. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of using EMA to obtain in-the-moment responses from cochlear implant users describing their technology preference in specific acoustic listening situations.
METHODS
METHODS
Over a two-week period, eleven adult cochlear implant users compared two listening programs containing different sound processing technologies during everyday take-home use. Their task was to compare and vote for their preferred program.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 205 votes were collected from acoustic environments that were classified into six listening scenes. The analysis yielded different patterns of voting among the subjects. Two subjects had a consistent preference for one sound processing technology across all acoustic scenes, three subjects changed their preference based on the acoustic scene, and six subjects had no conclusive preference for either technology.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Results show that EMA is suitable for quantifying real-world self-reported preference, showing inter-subject variability in different listening environments. However, there is uncertainty that patients will not provide sufficient spontaneous feedback. One improvement for future research is a participant forced prompt to improve response rates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35629065
pii: jcm11102941
doi: 10.3390/jcm11102941
pmc: PMC9147494
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Cochlear Europe
ID : IIR-Ki15
Références
J Am Acad Audiol. 2015 Nov-Dec;26(10):872-84
pubmed: 26554491
Acta Otolaryngol. 1981 Mar-Apr;91(3-4):173-5
pubmed: 6894818
HNO. 1986 Jul;34(7):271-9
pubmed: 3755709
Ear Hear. 2010 Apr;31(2):186-94
pubmed: 20071994
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 26;8(9):e75662
pubmed: 24086605
Ear Hear. 2012 Jul-Aug;33(4):e13-23
pubmed: 22555182
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48739
pubmed: 23152797
Laryngoscope. 2021 Mar;131(3):E940-E945
pubmed: 32484949
Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2021 Jun 15;6(4):807-815
pubmed: 34401506
Hear Res. 2018 Nov;369:24-28
pubmed: 29933937
Ear Hear. 2002 Feb;23(1 Suppl):49S-58S
pubmed: 11883767
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Apr;83:193-9
pubmed: 26968076
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4:1-32
pubmed: 18509902
Ear Hear. 2013 May-Jun;34(3):342-60
pubmed: 23348845
Trends Amplif. 2006 Dec;10(4):175-200
pubmed: 17172547
Audiol Res. 2015 Oct 07;5(2):132
pubmed: 26779327
Otol Neurotol. 2015 Jul;36(6):1001-5
pubmed: 25700016
Laryngorhinootologie. 2018 May;97(5):313-320
pubmed: 29534261
Ear Hear. 2021 Nov-Dec 01;42(6):1687-1698
pubmed: 34010247
Ear Hear. 2020 Nov/Dec;41 Suppl 1:79S-90S
pubmed: 33105262
Semin Hear. 2021 Aug;42(3):282-294
pubmed: 34594090
Int J Audiol. 2014 Aug;53(8):564-76
pubmed: 25005776
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014 Jan;271(1):49-57
pubmed: 23408020
Ear Hear. 2007 Feb;28(1):62-72
pubmed: 17204899
J Am Acad Audiol. 2021 Oct 20;:
pubmed: 34670290
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Nov;273(11):4011-4020
pubmed: 27276990
Ear Hear. 2012 Jul-Aug;33(4):497-507
pubmed: 22531573
Ear Hear. 2020 Nov/Dec;41 Suppl 1:5S-19S
pubmed: 33105255
Laryngoscope. 1981 Apr;91(4):628-34
pubmed: 7219008
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 May 24;60(5):1362-1377
pubmed: 28418532
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020 Oct 1;146(10):942-953
pubmed: 32857157
Int J Audiol. 2019 Dec;58(12):869-878
pubmed: 31464542
J Neural Eng. 2012 Dec;9(6):065007
pubmed: 23187159
Audiol Neurootol. 2017;22(4-5):226-235
pubmed: 29232662
Hear Res. 2017 Feb;344:183-194
pubmed: 27913315
Otol Neurotol. 2012 Jun;33(4):553-60
pubmed: 22588233
Cochlear Implants Int. 2013 Mar;14 Suppl 1:S18-25
pubmed: 23453148
Audiol Neurootol. 2013;18(1):36-47
pubmed: 23095305
Psychol Med. 2009 Sep;39(9):1533-47
pubmed: 19215626