Hearing Aid Preference Research Articles

Feasibility of Tablet-Based Remote Data Collection Method for Measuring Hearing Aid Preference.

The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of a tablet-based remote data collection method for measuring preference for hearing aid signal processing features. Participants were nine individuals with bilateral mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss. Stimuli were spatialized low-context sentences mixed with six-talker babble at two realistic signal-to-noise ratios (3 and 8 dB) and processed through a hearing aid simulator. Preference for full factorial combinations of three common hearing aid processing features (two levels each) was elicited using a paired-comparison task. Participants completed two versions of the experiment: The lab version was completed in a sound-treated booth using a custom MATLAB application on a desktop computer; the remote version was completed in a quiet room in the participant's home, using a custom MATLAB executable application on a tablet. Both versions used the same calibrated headphones. Strict infection control protocols were followed. McNemar's test showed no association between preference and data collection method for the majority of the conditions. Percentage agreement and kappa scores were moderate/fair across most conditions. The results indicated that the remote versus lab versions did not have a systematic effect on preference. However, the relatively low agreement and kappa scores suggested within-subject variability in the outcome (preference). The tablet-based version of remote experimentation was comparable to the lab-based version for eliciting preference for hearing aid signal processing features.

Determining unilateral or bilateral hearing aid preference in adults: a prospective study

Objective Despite high rates of bilateral hearing aid fitting globally, a number of adults continue to reject one hearing aid. The current study aimed to identify a clinically suitable tool for determining, pre-fitting, which clients might prefer one hearing aid. Study Sample: Ninety-five new adult hearing aid candidates, aged 49–87 years, were assessed prior to a first hearing aid fitting. Sixty-eight participants adhered to the prescribed protocol for both bilateral and unilateral hearing aid use. Design Performance was assessed on a modified version of the Listening in Spatialised Noise – Sentences test (LiSN-S), the Dichotic Digits difference Test, the Experiential Hearing Aid simulator, and the Grooved Pegboard Test. All participants were fitted bilaterally, but were instructed to alternate between unilateral and bilateral hearing aid use over fourteen weeks post-fitting. Participants’ wearing preferences were assessed via a short questionnaire. Results 78% of participants expressed an overall preference for bilateral hearing aid use. Only the LiSN-S bilateral advantage test outcomes significantly correlated with overall wearing preference. Conclusions Although the LiSN-S bilateral advantage score related to overall wearing preference, the accuracy of the predictor was too low to warrant implementation of this test prior to hearing aid fitting. The current practice of recommending bilateral hearing aid use continues to be the best option for clinicians.

Style Preference Survey: A Report on the Psychometric Properties and a Cross-Validation Experiment

Several self-report measures exist that target different aspects of outcomes for hearing aid use. Currently, no comprehensive questionnaire specifically assesses factors that may be important for differentiating outcomes pertaining to hearing aid style. The goal of this work was to develop the Style Preference Survey (SPS), a questionnaire aimed at outcomes associated with hearing aid style differences. Two experiments were conducted. After initial item development, Experiment 1 was conducted to refine the items and to determine its psychometric properties. Experiment 2 was designed to cross-validate the findings from the initial experiment. An observational design was used in both experiments. Participants who wore traditional, custom-fitted (TC) or open-canal (OC) style hearing aids from 3 mo to 3 yr completed the initial experiment. One-hundred and eighty-four binaural hearing aid users (120 of whom wore TC hearing aids and 64 of whom wore OC hearing aids) participated. A new sample of TC and OC users (n = 185) participated in the cross-validation experiment. Currently available self-report measures were reviewed to identify items that might differentiate between hearing aid styles, particularly preference for OC versus TC hearing aid styles. A total of 15 items were selected and modified from available self-report measures. An additional 55 items were developed through consensus of six audiologists for the initial version of the SPS. In the first experiment, the initial SPS version was mailed to 550 veterans who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 184 completed the SPS. Approximately three weeks later, a subset of participants (n = 83) completed the SPS a second time. Basic analyses were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SPS including subscale structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. Based on the results of Experiment 1, the SPS was revised. A cross-validation experiment was then conducted using the revised version of the SPS to confirm the subscale structure, internal consistency, and responsiveness of the questionnaire in a new sample of participants. The final factor analysis led to the ultimate version of the SPS, which had a total of 35 items encompassing five subscales: (1) Feedback, (2) Occlusion/Own Voice Effects, (3) Localization, (4) Fit, Comfort, and Cosmetics, and (5) Ease of Use. The internal consistency of the total SPS (Cronbach's α = .92) and of the subscales (each Cronbach's α > .75) was high. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) showed that the test-retest reliability of the total SPS (ICC = .93) and of the subscales (each ICC > .80) also was high. TC hearing aid users had significantly poorer outcomes than OC hearing aid users on 4 of the 5 subscales, suggesting that the SPS largely is responsive to factors related to style-specific differences. The results suggest that the SPS has good psychometric properties and is a valid and reliable measure of outcomes related to style-specific, hearing aid preference.

A Screening Procedure for Modified Simplex in Frequency-Gain Response Selection

The preference for hearing aid frequency-gain responses selected using the modified simplex procedure over that prescribed by NAL-R is not universal. A screening protocol used before individualized fitting may help streamline its use and ensure effective use of clinical time. In this protocol, listeners compare the prescribed frequency-gain response with selected alternate frequency-gain responses. Evaluation with the modified simplex procedure is indicated only when listeners consistently prefer the alternate frequency-gain responses in the screening procedure. Ten hearing aid wearers completed the screening protocol and the full modified simplex procedure. In addition, subjects compared their satisfaction for the prescribed and individually selected frequency-gain responses. The results were examined for efficiency, reliability, sensitivity, and efficacy of the selected frequency-gain response. Findings revealed that the screening protocol allowed reliable identification of listeners who needed fine-tuning of the prescribed frequency-gain response. Furthermore, satisfaction for selected frequency-gain response over prescribed frequency-gain response increased as more differences between the two responses were noted.

Paired comparison judgments in low‐fidelity circuitry

The effects of electroacoustic distortions on speech transmission through hearing aids has met with little agreement as to which characteristics are most detrimental to the understanding of speech. The purpose of this study was to examine the capacity of listeners to yield proximity (dissimilarity) matrices and preferences of hearing aids through the method of paired comparisons. Evaluative data consisted of pairwise judgements of 12 hearing aids. Fifty normal hearing adults representing five different acoustic competencies were used as listeners. These five competencies included (1) musicians; (2) audiologists; (3) engineers; (4) audio enthusiasts; and (5) noncategorical. Their task was to judge the dissimilarity between 78 pairs of hearing aid transduced spech and music on a nine‐point scale and to mark their hearing aid preference. Characteristics for each of the 12 hearing aids were determined for the following parameters: overall frequency response, fundamental frequency response, second, third and total harmonic distortion, phase distortion, transient distortion, intermodulation distortion, and internal noise. This perceptual data was analyzed using procedures of multidimensional scaling. INDSCAL was used to determine those electroacoustic characteristics germane to the decision process of judging quality in low fidelity circuitry. Correlation analysis determined the regression structure of the derived electroacoustic distortions on preference. Data will be discussed examining the individual and group differences including the precision and variance by which subjects judge low‐fidelity circuitry.