Self-reported listening effort in adults with and without hearing loss: the Danish version of the Effort Assessment Scale (D-EAS)

Cañete, Oscar M.; Nielsen, Silje Grini; Fuentes‐López, Eduardo

doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.2022781

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because one of our aims was to establish normative values for the EEAS, we chose a strictly controlled NH group (i.e., age below 35 and maximum worse ear hearing threshold below 15 dB HL), in contrast to Alhanbali et al (2017), whose control group was of a similar age as their HI group and who therefore used less strict hearing threshold criteria. We obtained very similar scores: the median EEAS score was 2.17 (2.1 for the EASc), that is, very close to Alhanbali's control group score (approximately 2.0) and to Cañete et al's young NH scores (Cañete et al, 2022). The interquartile range was 1.2 to 3.6, which was reduced when compared to Alhanbali's NH group (approximately 1-4), but on par with Cañete et al's results on young NH (as pictured in Figure 3).…”

Section: Comparisons Between Eas and Eeassupporting

confidence: 75%

“…For the full scale scores, the median we obtained in HIHA is smaller and outside the confidence intervals obtained from pooling both Alhanbali et al and Cañete et al's data: 5.4 versus 6.83, but our population has lower hearing thresholds and less HAs experience than data reported by Cañete et al (2022). The three EEAS quiet items, which had lower scores, may also contribute to reducing our EEAS total score, and the EEAS noise median is closer to the EAS scores (median at 6.5), suggesting that, by default, overall (except for EAS_6), patients tend to answer the EAS items as if they were explicitly depicted in noise.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

“… Extended version of the Effort Assessment Scale (EEAS) scores for a group of 62 participants with normal hearing (NH, light blue) and 481 persons with hearing impairment and hearing aids (HIHA, dark blue). (a) The median of each item of the EEAS (light blue squares for NH and dark blue dots for HIHA), with comparative data from Cañete's Danish EAS ( Cañete et al 2022 ), on 13 young NH (small orange squares), 47 persons with no hearing aid (HI, small red dots), and 47 persons with hearing aids (small dark red triangles, HIHA). The horizontal axis shows the EEAS items number (in black), with the corresponding EAS item numbers (in blue).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Listening Effort in Quiet and Noisy Environments in the Daily Life of Adults With Hearing Aids: An Extended Version of the Effort Assessment Scale (EEAS)

Ferschneider

Moulin

2023

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was aimed at assessing listening effort (LE) in quiet and in noisy daily life situations, in 481 adults with hearing aids (HAs) and 62 adults with normal hearing, using an Extended version of the Effort Assessment Scale (EEAS). Participants were invited to self-assess their LE in daily life, on a visual analog scale graded from 0 (no effort) to 10. The EEAS's internal structure identified two separate constructs pertaining to LE in quiet and LE in noise, each with good consistency (Cronbach's α > 0.83). A three-factor model explained 12% of the variance of the EEAS scores, with HA experience the most important one, and better ear hearing threshold (averaged across 0.5–4 kHz) and ear asymmetry as the other two factors. The EEAS subscales differed in behavior, with the LE in noise being the most dependent on HA experience, whereas LE in quiet depended more on better ear hearing threshold. In a subgroup of people with 6 months to less than 24 months HA experience, a significant decrease in LE in noise was observed with increasing HA experience (0.26 points decrease per year of HA experience), whereas in a group of people with at least 24 months of HA experience, a small increase in LE in noise was observed. This effect was not mediated by age, nor hearing threshold. The extended Effort Assessment Scale is therefore offering an assessment of both LE in quiet and LE in noise, with different dependence on HA experience and hearing thresholds.

show abstract

Section: Comparisons Between Eas and Eeassupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Listening Effort in Quiet and Noisy Environments in the Daily Life of Adults With Hearing Aids: An Extended Version of the Effort Assessment Scale (EEAS)

Ferschneider

Moulin

2023

Trends in Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, more important than that is how the individual's effort score varies between sessions. If between-session variability is acceptable, these measures could be used in a realistic setting to assess the daily life effort of hearing-impaired individuals (Cañete et al, 2023).…”

Section: The Reliability Of the Behavioural Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When speech is degraded, a greater use of cognitive resources is required, including selective attention to segregate and identify target speech from background interference and working memory to compensate for the reduction of target speech information (Edwards, 2016; Pichora‐Fuller et al, 2016; Rönnberg et al, 2013). The assessment of listening contributes to our understanding of the real‐life difficulties faced by individuals with hearing impairments (Alhanbali et al, 2017; Cañete et al, 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity and reliability of self‐reported and neural measures of listening effort

Mohammadi,

Østergaard,

Graversen

et al. 2023

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Listening effort can be defined as a measure of cognitive resources used by listeners to perform a listening task. Various methods have been proposed to measure this effort, yet their reliability remains unestablished, a crucial step before their application in research or clinical settings. This study encompassed 32 participants undertaking speech‐in‐noise tasks across two sessions, approximately a week apart. They listened to sentences and word lists at varying signal‐to‐noise ratios (SNRs) (−9, −6, −3 and 0 dB), then retaining them for roughly 3 s. We evaluated the test–retest reliability of self‐reported effort ratings, theta (4–7 Hz) and alpha (8–13 Hz) oscillatory power, suggested previously as neural markers of listening effort. Additionally, we examined the reliability of correct word percentages. Both relative and absolute reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland–Altman analysis. We also computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC). Our findings indicated heightened frontal midline theta power for word lists compared to sentences during the retention phase under high SNRs (0 dB, −3 dB), likely indicating a greater memory load for word lists. We observed SNR's impact on alpha power in the right central region during the listening phase and frontal theta power during the retention phase in sentences. Overall, the reliability analysis demonstrated satisfactory between‐session variability for correct words and effort ratings. However, neural measures (frontal midline theta power and right central alpha power) displayed substantial variability, even though group‐level outcomes appeared consistent across sessions.

show abstract

The Impact of Instructions on Individual Prioritization Strategies in a Dual-Task Paradigm for Listening Effort

Kestens,

Lepla,

Vandoorne

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionUnderstanding how listeners execute a dual-task paradigm for listening effort would provide a benchmark for future studies and clinical implementations. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the impact of instructions on the prioritization strategy employed by individuals during a dual-task paradigm for listening effort by assessing dual-task interference.MethodsThe dual-task paradigm consisted of a primary speech understanding task in different listening conditions and a secondary visual memory task, both performed separately (baseline) and simultaneously (dual-task). Twenty-three normal-hearing participants (mean age: 36.8 years; 14 females) were directed to prioritize the primary speech understanding task in the dual-task condition, whereas another twenty-three (matched for age, gender, and education level) received no specific instructions regarding task priority. Both groups performed the dual-task paradigm twice (mean interval: 14.8 days). Dual-task interference was assessed by plotting the dual-task effect of the primary and secondary task against each other. Participants were classified based on their patterns of interference.ResultsThe prioritizing group had more participants who achieved stable or better scores on the primary task in the dual-task condition compared to baseline. However, there was considerable variability in the prioritizing strategy employed at the individual level across listening conditions and test moments, regardless the given prioritization instructions.ConclusionProviding prioritization instructions was insufficient to ensure that an individual will mainly focus on the primary task and will stick to this strategy across listening conditions and test moments. These results raised certain reservations about the current usage of dual-task paradigms for listening effort.

show abstract

Self-reported listening effort in adults with and without hearing loss: the Danish version of the Effort Assessment Scale (D-EAS)

Cited by 5 publications

References 37 publications

Listening Effort in Quiet and Noisy Environments in the Daily Life of Adults With Hearing Aids: An Extended Version of the Effort Assessment Scale (EEAS)

Listening Effort in Quiet and Noisy Environments in the Daily Life of Adults With Hearing Aids: An Extended Version of the Effort Assessment Scale (EEAS)

Validity and reliability of self‐reported and neural measures of listening effort

The Impact of Instructions on Individual Prioritization Strategies in a Dual-Task Paradigm for Listening Effort

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About