Critical hearing experiences manifest differently across individuals: insights from hearing aid data captured in real-life moments

Lelic, Dina; Nielsen, Jakob; Parker, Daniel M.; Rønne, Filip Marchman

doi:10.1080/14992027.2021.1933621

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…satisfaction 16 and as such, we do not consider one method to be superior to the other in this aspect, but rather want to discuss their potential of complementing each other. For example, "Focused Listening -Live Sounds" was rated by participants in EMA, whereas only one participant in HEARLI-Q indicated such situations to occur on daily or weekly basis.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, certain situations are underrepresented in EMA 9,10 . Participants may also be less likely to interact with the EMA application in a moment that is already challenging 11 and these situations are often the most interesting when evaluating HAs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, we conducted a study where we utilized both HEARLI-Q and EMA based on the same questions & response alternatives to investigate the effect of a "positive focus" intervention on HA satisfaction and benefit 16 . Similar to Wu et al 15 , we observed comparable effects on HA satisfaction between retrospective and in-situ questionnaires, where participants who were asked to focus on positive listening experiences for two weeks after HA fitting had higher ratings relative to the control group.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Lelic,

Wolters,

Schinkel-Bielefeld

2024

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Lelic,

Wolters,

Schinkel-Bielefeld

2024

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In real-life, listeners often report vastly different experiences and/or hearing aid expectation, warranting the need for a more comprehensive understanding of unique auditory lifestyles. 30 This sought after and rich relationship between the acoustical environments experienced in everyday life and the perceptual demands of individual listeners in these environments has been termed "auditory ecology." 31,32 Auditory ecology is integral to achieving personalized and objective hearing care planning.…”

Section: Personalizing Care With Acoustic Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Modern Hearing Care Landscape: Toward the Provision of Personalized, Dynamic, and Adaptive Care

Glista

Schnittker²,

Brice

2023

Semin Hear

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New technologies and developments in hearing healthcare are rapidly transforming service models, delivery channels, and available solutions. These advances are reshaping the ways in which care is provided, leading to greater personalization, service efficiencies, and improved access to care, to name a few benefits. Connected hearing care is one model with the potential to embrace this “customized” hearing experience by forging a hybrid of health–technology connections, as well as traditional face-to-face interactions between clients, providers, and persons integral to the care journey. This article will discuss the many components of connected care, encompassing variations of traditional and teleaudiology-focused services, clinic-based and direct-to-consumer channels, in addition to the varying levels of engagement and readiness defining the touch points for clients to access a continuum of connected hearing care. The emerging hearing healthcare system is one that is dynamic and adaptive, allowing for personalized care, but also shifting the focus to the client's needs and preferences. This shift in the care model, largely driven by innovation and the growing opportunities for clients to engage with hearing technology, brings forth new, exciting, and sometimes uncomfortable discussion points for both the provider and client. The modern hearing care landscape benefits clients to better meet their needs and preferences in a more personalized style, and providers to better support and address those needs and preferences.

show abstract

“…Many measures to improve the listening situation also increase the SNR and previous studies have indicated that people spend most time in easy listening situations without much noise (4,8,9,10). Another reason for high satisfaction / benefit ratings could be that EMA questionnaires do not capture difficult situations as participants are less inclined to interact with the study equipment and answer a survey in a situation that is already challenging for them (11). There could also be personal reasons for the high ratings, such as, wanting to please the experimenter in cases where a hearing aid / fitting is being evaluated by the hearing aid manufacturer or the participant's hearing care provider.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Schinkel-Bielefeld,

Ritslev,

Lelic

2023

Front. Digit. Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn past Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies, hearing aid outcome ratings have often been close to ceiling.MethodsTo 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.ResultsThe 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.DiscussionThis 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.

show abstract

Critical hearing experiences manifest differently across individuals: insights from hearing aid data captured in real-life moments

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

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

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

The Modern Hearing Care Landscape: Toward the Provision of Personalized, Dynamic, and Adaptive Care

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About