GPS predicts stability of listening environment characteristics in one location over time among older hearing aid users

Jorgensen, Erik; Stangl, Elizabeth; Chipara, Octav; Hernandez, Helin; Oleson, Jacob; Wu, Yu-Hsiang

doi:10.1080/14992027.2020.1831083

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants in all groups generally rated environments with higher sound levels as noisier and environments with lower sound levels as softer, but this was relative to the overall range of input levels experienced by each group. An additional factor is that participants with hearing loss also completed ratings of environments based on amplified sound through their hearing aids, which might affect the relationship between objective levels and ratings, although prior research suggests that hearing aid use does not generally affect perceptions of loudness or noisiness reported on EMAs (Jorgensen et al 2021). A final possibility is that loud environments are under-sampled on EMA, as participants may be more likely to skip surveys delivered in louder environments (Schinkel-Bielefeld et al 2020; Wu et al 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory Environments and Hearing Aid Feature Activation Among Younger and Older Listeners in an Urban and Rural Area

Jorgensen

Chipara

et al. 2022

Ear &Amp; Hearing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in auditory environments and hearing aid feature activation between younger listeners with normal hearing and older listeners with hearing loss in an urban and rural location. We hypothesized that (1) urban dwellers and younger listeners would encounter more diverse and demanding auditory environments than rural dwellers and older listeners, respectively; (2) the advanced hearing aid features (noise reduction and directional microphone) of urban dwellers and younger listeners would be activated more frequently than rural dwellers and older listeners, respectively. Design:The design of this study was cross-sectional with repeated measures. A total of 12 older adults with hearing loss (OHL-U) and 11 younger adults with normal hearing (YNH-U) were recruited from an urban area (Berkeley, California) and 13 older adults with hearing loss (OHL-R) and 10 YNH-U were recruited from a rural area (Iowa City, Iowa). Participants wore hearing aids that recorded data about their listening environments and completed ecological momentary assessments for 1 week. Results:The YNH-U group experienced higher sound pressure levels and hearing aid features were activated more frequently than in the OHL groups. The OHL-R group experienced significantly less diverse sound pressure levels than the YNH-U group. The YNH-R group had sound levels between the YNH-U group and the OHL groups but without significant differences from any other group. The YNH groups showed a greater likelihood of hearing aid feature activation than the OHL-R group.Conclusions: Demographics affect auditory environments and the activation of hearing aid features. Younger urban dwellers have the most diverse or demanding auditory environments and hearing aid feature activation, and older, rural dwellers with hearing loss have the least diverse or demanding auditory environments and hearing aid feature activation. Future studies of real-world auditory environments and audiology intervention effectiveness should consider location in recruitment and interpretation of results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory Environments and Hearing Aid Feature Activation Among Younger and Older Listeners in an Urban and Rural Area

Jorgensen

Chipara

et al. 2022

Ear &Amp; Hearing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A simple, intuitive, and theoretically meaningful measure of auditory environment diversity such as entropy has many potential applications. Hearing aids users who encounter greater auditory environment diversity may benefit from more advanced hearing aid technologies such as a more detailed environment classification taxonomy, faster feature activation of adaptation, more user control, GPS-tagged features, feature parameters that learn from the environment and user input, or other algorithms that take into account less predictable inputs ( 2 , 5 , 6 ). Because auditory environment diversity can be meaningfully estimated with entropy measured from hearing aid input data, the hearing aids themselves could use this information to make decisions about how to adapt to the environment for a given user.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each question could have 1 response, with the exceptions of questions 1 and 3 which were “select all that apply.” EMA surveys were also tagged with GPS-coordinates with the consent of participants. For details on the accuracy and assessment of GPS-tagged EMA, see ( 2 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Understanding the auditory environments hearing aid users encounter in daily life, and the factors that affect what types of environments hearing aid users encounter, could improve hearing aid outcomes. Hearing aid selection, hearing aid signal processing, counseling, and aural rehabilitation can be tailored based on the auditory environments users encounter and their unique hearing needs in specific environments ( 2 – 5 ). For example, hearing aid users with more active lifestyles, and thus who likely encounter more diverse auditory environments, may benefit more from advanced hearing aid technologies than listeners with less active lifestyles ( 6 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Auditory environment diversity quantified using entropy from real-world hearing aid data

Jorgensen

Chipara

et al. 2023

Front. Digit. Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionUsing data collected from hearing aid users’ own hearing aids could improve the customization of hearing aid processing for different users based on the auditory environments they encounter in daily life. Prior studies characterizing hearing aid users’ auditory environments have focused on mean sound pressure levels and proportions of environments based on classifications. In this study, we extend these approaches by introducing entropy to quantify the diversity of auditory environments hearing aid users encounter.Materials and MethodsParticipants from 4 groups (younger listeners with normal hearing and older listeners with hearing loss from an urban or rural area) wore research hearing aids and completed ecological momentary assessments on a smartphone for 1 week. The smartphone was programmed to sample the processing state (input sound pressure level and environment classification) of the hearing aids every 10 min and deliver an ecological momentary assessment every 40 min. Entropy values for sound pressure levels, environment classifications, and ecological momentary assessment responses were calculated for each participant to quantify the diversity of auditory environments encountered over the course of the week. Entropy values between groups were compared. Group differences in entropy were compared to prior work reporting differences in mean sound pressure levels and proportions of environment classifications. Group differences in entropy measured objectively from the hearing aid data were also compared to differences in entropy measured from the self-report ecological momentary assessment data.ResultsAuditory environment diversity, quantified using entropy from the hearing aid data, was significantly higher for younger listeners than older listeners. Entropy measured using ecological momentary assessment was also significantly higher for younger listeners than older listeners.DiscussionUsing entropy, we show that younger listeners experience a greater diversity of auditory environments than older listeners. Alignment of group entropy differences with differences in sound pressure levels and hearing aid feature activation previously reported, along with alignment with ecological momentary response entropy, suggests that entropy is a valid and useful metric. We conclude that entropy is a simple and intuitive way to measure auditory environment diversity using hearing aid data.

show abstract

“…Latest hearing aid technologies are more promising compared to the older generations in terms of speech perception in noise, noise reduction algorithms, directional hearing, wireless connectivity, geotagging, and automatic program selection based on data logging [ 5 , 6 ]. Hearing aids with an increased number of channels or more advanced features are expected to have better performance based on noise reduction, speech discrimination, directionality, and other individual-based requirements than hearing aids with basic features.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefit on daily listening with technological advancements: comparison of basic and premium category hearing aids

Prakash¹,

Sreedhar²,

Balan³

et al. 2022

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of the study was to compare the user-rated benefit of two categories of hearing aids, mainly the basic and premium categories of hearing aids. Methods A questionnaire was administered on 102 hearing aids users (47 basic and 55 premium category users) with severity of hearing loss ranging from mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss. The questionnaire administered was divided into mainly seven subscales which included speech intelligibility in quiet and in noise, ease of communication, the efficiency of noise reduction, localization, quality of music perception and cost effectiveness. The effect of duration of daily usage of hearing aids on performance among these different subscales was also assessed. Results Ease of communication was rated better by premium hearing aid users, whereas the cost effectiveness was rated to be better by basic users. There was no significant difference observed between performances of basic versus premium category of hearing aids in other listening domains assessed. There was no significant difference in any of the listening domains with daily usage duration for both categories of hearing aid users. Conclusion The users of premium category devices revealed better ease of communication in daily environments, whereas performance of these devices on other listening domains remains questionable. Cost effectiveness was reported to be better by the users of basic hearing aids. A prospective and controlled paired series comparison of hearing aid performance needs to be performed to confirm these findings. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00405-021-07240-3.

show abstract

GPS predicts stability of listening environment characteristics in one location over time among older hearing aid users

Cited by 6 publications

References 61 publications

Auditory Environments and Hearing Aid Feature Activation Among Younger and Older Listeners in an Urban and Rural Area

Auditory Environments and Hearing Aid Feature Activation Among Younger and Older Listeners in an Urban and Rural Area

Auditory environment diversity quantified using entropy from real-world hearing aid data

Benefit on daily listening with technological advancements: comparison of basic and premium category hearing aids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About