The estimated SNRs were higher than previously reported. The results can be used in the design and evaluation of hearing-device features.

Ecological validity is a relatively new concept in hearing science. It has been cited as relevant with increasing frequency in publications over the past 20 years, but without any formal conceptual basis or clear motive. The sixth Eriksholm Workshop was convened to develop a deeper understanding of the concept for the purpose of applying it in hearing research in a consistent and productive manner. Inspired by relevant debate within the field of psychology, and taking into account the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework, the attendees at the workshop reached a consensus on the following definition: “In hearing science, ecological validity refers to the degree to which research findings reflect real-life hearing-related function, activity, or participation.” Four broad purposes for striving for greater ecological validity in hearing research were determined: A (Understanding) better understanding the role of hearing in everyday life; B (Development) supporting the development of improved procedures and interventions; C (Assessment) facilitating improved methods for assessing and predicting ability to accomplish real-world tasks; and D (Integration and Individualization) enabling more integrated and individualized care. Discussions considered the effects of variables and phenomena commonly present in hearing-related research on the level of ecological validity of outcomes, supported by examples from a few selected outcome domains and for different types of studies. Illustrated with examples, potential strategies were offered for promoting a high level of ecological validity in a study and for how to evaluate the level of ecological validity of a study. Areas in particular that could benefit from more research to advance ecological validity in hearing science include: (1) understanding the processes of hearing and communication in everyday listening situations, and specifically the factors that make listening difficult in everyday situations; (2) developing new test paradigms that include more than one person (e.g., to encompass the interactive nature of everyday communication) and that are integrative of other factors that interact with hearing in real-life function; (3) integrating new and emerging technologies (e.g., virtual reality) with established test methods; and (4) identifying the key variables and phenomena affecting the level of ecological validity to develop verifiable ways to increase ecological validity and derive a set of benchmarks to strive for.

In a laboratory study, we found that normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners preferred less than normal overall calculated loudness (according to a loudness model of Moore & Glasberg, 1997). The current study verified those results using a research hearing aid. Fifteen hearing-impaired and eight normal-hearing participants used the hearing aid in the field and adjusted a volume control to give preferred loudness. The hearing aid logged the preferred volume control setting and the calculated loudness at that setting. The hearing-impaired participants preferred, in median, loudness levels of -14 phon re normal for input levels from 50 to 89 dB SPL. The normal-hearing participants preferred close to normal overall loudness. In subsequent laboratory tests, using the same hearing aid, both hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners preferred less than normal overall calculated loudness, and larger reductions for higher input levels In summary, the hearing-impaired listeners preferred less than normal overall calculated loudness, whereas the results for the normal-hearing listeners were inconclusive.

A structured framework was developed. Intentions and tasks constitute the main categories in the framework, and 14 common sound scenarios were selected and described. The framework can for instance be used when developing hearing-device signal-processing features, in the evaluation of such features in realistic laboratory tests, and for demonstration of feature effects to hearing-device wearers.

LessLoudn, which gave less than normal overall loudness according to the loudness model used, was preferred both in the field and in the laboratory tests. Speech recognition scores were similar for both methods. A comparison between the measured gain for NormLoudn and the gain prescribed by CAMEQ, NAL-NL1, and DSL[i/o], suggests that all three prescriptive procedures (DSL[i/o] in particular) would probably overestimate the required gain for subjects without hearing aid experience and with mild to moderate hearing loss. When providing these clients with hearing aids, it seems important to include a careful adjustment of the overall gain to avoid overamplification if the prescription used aims at restoring overall loudness to normal according to the loudness model used here.