Predicting Individual Hearing-Aid Preference From Self-Reported Listening Experiences in Daily Life.
Journal
Ear and hearing
ISSN: 1538-4667
Titre abrégé: Ear Hear
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8005585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 May 2024
24 May 2024
Historique:
medline:
24
5
2024
pubmed:
24
5
2024
entrez:
24
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38783420
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001520
pii: 00003446-990000000-00279
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Ear & Hearing is published on behalf of the American Auditory Society, by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Andersen A. H., Santurette S., Pedersen M. S., Alickovic E., Fiedler L., Jensen J., Behrens T. (2021). Creating clarity in noisy environments by using deep learning in hearing aids. Semin Hear, 42, 260–281.
Andersson K. E., Andersen L. S., Christensen J. H., Neher T. (2021). Assessing real-life benefit from hearing-aid noise management: SSQ12 questionnaire versus ecological momentary assessment with acoustic data-logging. Am J Audiol, 30, 93–104.
Andersson K. E., Neher T., Christensen J. H. (2023). Ecological momentary assessments of real-world speech listening are associated with heart rate and acoustic condition. Front Audiol Otol, 1, 1275210. https://doi.org/10.3389/fauot.2023.1275210.
doi: 10.3389/fauot.2023.1275210
Bosman A. J., Christensen J. H., Rosenbom T., Patou F., Janssen A., Hol M. K. S. (2021). Investigating real-world benefits of high-frequency gain in bone-anchored users with ecological momentary assessment and real-time data logging. J Clin Med, 10, 3923.
Bradburn N. M., Rips L. J., Shevell S. K. (1987). Answering autobiographical questions: The impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science, 236, 157–161.
Bzdok D., Ioannidis J. P. A. (2019). Exploration, inference, and prediction in neuroscience and biomedicine. Trends Neurosci, 42, 251–262.
Christensen J. H., Saunders G. H., Havtorn L., Pontoppidan N. H. (2021). Real-world hearing aid usage patterns and smartphone connectivity. Front Digit Health, 3, 722186. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2021.722186.
doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2021.722186
Christensen J. H., Whiston H., Lough M., Gil-Carvajal J. C., Rumley J., Saunders G. H. (2024). Evaluating real-world benefits of hearing aids with deep neural network-based noise reduction: An Ecological Momentary Assessment study. Am J Audiol, 18, 1–12. doi: 10.1044/2023_AJA-23-00149. Epub ahead of print. Erratum in: Am J Audiol. 2024 Apr 18; 1. PMID: 38354098.
doi: 10.1044/2023_AJA-23-00149
Collins G. S., Reitsma J. B., Altman D. G., Moons K. G. M. (2015). Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD). Circulation, 131, 211–219.
Cutler D. R., Edwards T. C., Beard K. H., Cutler A., Hess K. T., Gibson J., Lawler J. J. (2007). Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology, 88, 2783–2792.
Dillon H., Birtles G., Lovegrove R. (1999). Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: Normative data for the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and the Hearing Aid User’s Questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 67–79.
Fletcher H., Munson W. A. (1933). Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation*. Bell Syst Tech J, 12, 377–430.
Gatehouse S., Noble W. (2004). The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85–99.
Hart A., Reis D., Prestele E., Jacobson N. C. (2022). Using smartphone sensor paradata and personalized machine learning models to infer participants’ well-being: Ecological momentary assessment. J Med Internet Res, 24, e34015.
Hastie T., Friedman J., Tibshirani R. (2001). The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5.
Holube I., von Gablenz P., Bitzer J. (2020). Ecological momentary assessment in hearing research: Current state, challenges, and future directions. Ear Hear, 41(Suppl 1, 79S–90S.
Kates J. M. (2008). Digital Hearing Aids. Plural Publishing.
Kjems U., Jensen J. (2012). Maximum likelihood based noise covariance matrix estimation for multi-microphone speech enhancement. 2012 Proceedings of the 20th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), 295–299.
Klyn N. A. M., Robler S. K., Bogle J., Alfakir R., Nielsen D. W., Griffith J. W., Carlson D. L., Lundy L., Dhar S., Zapala D. A. (2019). CEDRA—A tool to help consumers assess risk for ear disease. Ear Hear, 40, 1261.
Lelic D., Wolters F., Schinkel-Bielefeld N. (2024). Measuring hearing aid satisfaction in everyday listening situations: Retrospective and in-situ assessments complement each other. J Am Acad Audiol. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2265-9418. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38336116.
doi: 10.1055/a-2265-9418
Ling D. (1976). Hearing aids and the use of residual hearing. Aust J Hum Commun Disord, 4, 9–14.
Newman C. W., Weinstein B. E., Jacobson G. P., Hug G. A. (1990). The hearing handicap inventory for adults. Ear Hear, 11, 430–433.
Noble W., Jensen N. S., Naylor G., Bhullar N., Akeroyd M. A. (2013). A short form of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale suitable for clinical use: The SSQ12. Int J Audiol, 52, 409–412.
Pasta A., Petersen M. K., Jensen K. J., Pontoppidan N. H., Larsen J. E., Christensen J. H. (2022). Measuring and modeling context-dependent preferences for hearing aid settings. User Model User-Adapt Interact, 32, 977–998.
Robinson M. D., Clore G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychol Bull, 128, 934–960.
Saeb S., Lonini L., Jayaraman A., Mohr D. C., Kording K. P. (2017). The need to approximate the use-case in clinical machine learning. GigaScience, 6, gix019.. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/gix019.
doi: 10.1093/gigascience/gix019
Schinkel-Bielefeld N. (2020). Laboratory experiments versus ecological momentary assessment? The quest to evaluate real life hearing aid performance. Forum Acusticum, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.48465/fa.2020.0545.
doi: 10.48465/fa.2020.0545
Schinkel-Bielefeld N., Kunz P., Zutz A., Buder B. (2020). Evaluation of hearing aids in everyday life using ecological momentary assessment: What situations are we missing?. Am J Audiol, 29, 591–609.
Schinkel-Bielefeld N., Ritslev J., Lelic D. (2023). Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: The relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings. Front Digit Health, 5, 1134490.
Shiffman S., Stone A. A., Hufford M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol, 4, 1–32.
Souden M., Benesty J., Affes S. (2010). A study of the LCMV and MVDR noise reduction filters. IEEE Trans Signal Process, 58, 4925–4935.
Stone A. A., Shiffman S. (2002). Capturing momentary, self-report data: A proposal for reporting guidelines. Ann Behav Med, 24, 236–243.
Timmer B. H. B., Hickson L., David M., Launer S. (2018). Do hearing aids address real-world hearing difficulties for adults with mild hearing impairment? Results from a pilot study using ecological momentary assessment. Trends Hear, 22, 233121651878360.
Uwe Simmer K., Bitzer J., Marro C. (2001). Post-filtering techniques. In M. Brandstein, D. Ward (Eds.), Microphone Arrays: Signal Processing Techniques and Applications (pp. 39–60). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04619-7_3
van Smeden M., Reitsma J. B., Riley R. D., Collins G. S., Moons K. G. (2021). Clinical prediction models: Diagnosis versus prognosis. J Clin Epidemiol, 132, 142–145.
Walden B. E., Surr R. K., Cord M. T., Dyrlund O. (2004). Predicting hearing aid microphone preference in everyday listening. J Am Acad Audiol, 15, 365–396.
Williger B., Lang F. R. (2015). Hearing aid use in everyday life: Managing contextual variability. Gerontology, 61, 158–165.
Wolters F., Smeds K., Schmidt E., Christensen E. K., Norup C. (2016). Common sound scenarios: A context-driven categorization of everyday sound environments for application in hearing-device research. J Am Acad Audiol, 27, 527–540.
Wu Y.-H., Stangl E., Chipara O., Gudjonsdottir A., Oleson J., Bentler R. (2020). Comparison of in-situ and retrospective self-reports on assessing hearing aid outcomes. J Am Acad Audiol, 31, 746–762.
Wu Y.-H., Stangl E., Zhang X., Bentler R. A. (2015). Construct validity of the ecological momentary assessment in audiology research. J Am Acad Audiol, 26, 872–884.
Yellamsetty A., Ozmeral E. J., Budinsky R. A., Eddins D. A. (2021). A comparison of environment classification among premium hearing instruments. Trends Hear, 25, 233121652098096.