The Quest for Ecological Validity in Hearing Science: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Advance It

Keidser, Gitte; Naylor, Graham; Brungart, Douglas S.; Caduff, Andreas; Campos, Jennifer L.; Carlile, Simon; Carpenter, Mark G.; Grimm, Giso; Hohmann, Volker; Holube, Inga; Launer, Stefan; Lunner, Thomas; Mehra, Ravish; Rapport, Frances; Slaney, Malcolm; Smeds, Karolina

doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000944

Cited by 106 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Humans do not communicate with repetitive tones or clicks, as used for traditional objective measures. Context-rich continuous speech better approximates natural language use and as a result, research findings with these stimuli are more relevant for auditory processing in day-to-day communication (Kei et al, 1999; Pichora-Fuller et al, 2016; Hamilton and Huth, 2018; Keidser et al, 2020). Moreover, continuous speech is more comfortable and interesting for the listener.…”

Section: The Neural Tracking Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural tracking as a diagnostic tool to assess the auditory pathway

Canneyt

Gillis

Vanthornhout

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neural tracking framework enables the analysis of neural responses (EEG) to continuous natural speech, e.g., a story or a podcast. This allows for objective investigation of a range of auditory and linguistic processes in the brain during natural speech perception. This approach is more ecologically valid than traditional auditory evoked responses and has great potential for both research and clinical applications. In this article, we review the neural tracking framework and highlight three prominent examples of neural tracking analyses. This includes the neural tracking of the fundamental frequency of the voice (f0), the speech envelope and linguistic features. Each of these analyses provides a unique point of view into the hierarchical stages of speech processing in the human brain. f0-tracking assesses the encoding of fine temporal information in the early stages of the auditory pathway, i.e. from the auditory periphery up to early processing in the primary auditory cortex. This fundamental processing in (mostly) subcortical stages forms the foundation of speech perception in the cortex. Envelope tracking reflects bottom-up and top-down speech-related processes in the auditory cortex, and is likely necessary but not sufficient for speech intelligibility. To study neural processes more directly related to speech intelligibility, neural tracking of linguistic features can be used. This analysis focuses on the encoding of linguistic features (e.g. word or phoneme surprisal) in the brain. Together these analyses form a multi-faceted and time-effective objective assessment of the auditory and linguistic processing of an individual.

show abstract

Section: The Neural Tracking Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural tracking as a diagnostic tool to assess the auditory pathway

Canneyt

Gillis

Vanthornhout

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to select evaluation methods that show a high degree of ecological validity, that is, methods that reflect the benefit or preference that is experienced in everyday life. 1 Laboratory tests, such as measures of speech recognition and ratings of sound quality, are often used to evaluate benefit and preference. However, most speech tests are not particularly sensitive to, for instance, differences in gain-frequency response shape, 2 and if adaptive testing is used, speech tests might produce misleading results for various types of signal processing, such as compression and noise reduction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Live Evaluation of Auditory Preference, a Laboratory Test for Evaluating Auditory Preference

Smeds¹,

Larsson²,

Dahlquist³

et al. 2021

J Am Acad Audiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many laboratory tests are performed under unrealistic conditions. Tasks, such as repeating words or sentences, are performed in simple loudspeaker setups. Currently, many research groups focus on realistic audiovisual laboratory setups. Fewer groups focus on the tasks performed during testing. Purpose A semicontrolled laboratory test method focusing on the tasks performed, the Live Evaluation of Auditory Preference (LEAP) was evaluated. LEAP is developed to evaluate hearing-instrument performance in test scenarios that represent everyday listening situations. Research Design LEAP was evaluated in a feasibility study. The method comprises conversations between a test participant and one or two test leaders, enabling evaluation of the test participant's own voice. The method allows for visual cues (when relevant) and introduce social pressure to participate in the conversation. In addition, other everyday listening tasks, such as watching television (TV) and listening to radio, are included. In this study, LEAP was used to assess preference for two hearing aid settings using paired comparisons. Study Sample Nineteen experienced hearing aid users (13 females and 6 males; mean age 74 years), participated in the study. Data Collection and Analysis LEAP was performed at three visits to the laboratory. In addition, participants conducted a field trial where the two hearing aid programs were compared using Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMA). During LEAP testing, six mandatory test cases were used, representing commonly occurring everyday listening situations. Individual test cases were also included, selected from individually experienced listening situations during the field trial. Within- and between-session reliability of the LEAP test was investigated. Validity was investigated by comparing the LEAP and the EMA results. Results For the current signal-processing evaluation, the test was judged to have acceptable reliability and validity. The inclusion of individually selected test cases increased the representativeness of the LEAP test, but it did not substantially alter the results in the current study. Conclusion LEAP in its current implementation seems suitable for investigating signal-processing preference in the laboratory in a way that is indicative of everyday preference. The LEAP method represents one step forward in bringing the real world into the laboratory.

show abstract

“…It is also unknown how copresence influences effort invested during such a task. While speech perception in noise tasks seem to better reflect daily life listening than clinical tests like pure-tone and speech audiometry ( Kramer et al 1996 ; Spyridakou & Bamiou 2015 ), they still lack ecological validity ( Keidser et al 2020 ) in that characteristics of the social context are not taken into account. Even though the real-life social context of listening is much more complex than the mere presence of another person, a relatively simple manipulation was preferred in this study because of the novelty of this aspect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%