scholarly journals Motion Sensors in Automatic Steering of Hearing Aids

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (03) ◽  
pp. 237-247
Author(s):  
Eric Branda ◽  
Tobias Wurzbacher
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
Acoustic Sensors ◽  
Sound Sources ◽  
Acoustic Characteristics ◽  
Automatic Steering ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

AbstractA requirement for modern hearing aids is to evaluate a listening environment for the user and automatically apply appropriate gain and feature settings for optimal hearing in that listening environment. This has been predominantly achieved by the hearing aids' acoustic sensors, which measure acoustic characteristics such as the amplitude and modulation of the incoming sound sources. However, acoustic information alone is not always sufficient for providing a clear indication of the soundscape and user's listening needs. User activity such as being stationary or being in motion can drastically change these listening needs. Recently, hearing aids have begun utilizing integrated motion sensors to provide further information to the hearing aid's decision-making process when determining the listening environment. Specifically, accelerometer technology has proven to be an appropriate solution for motion sensor integration in hearing aids. Recent investigations have shown benefits with integrated motion sensors for both laboratory and real-world ecological momentary assessment measurements. The combination of acoustic and motion sensors provides the hearing aids with data to better optimize the hearing aid features in anticipation of the hearing aid user's listening needs.

scholarly journals Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Octav Chipara ◽  
Anna Gudjonsdottir ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Outcome Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Ecological Momentary

Abstract Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. Purpose To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. Research Design An observational study. Study Sample Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP. Results For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029–0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28–0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1. Conclusion The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.

scholarly journals Feature Extraction in Motor Activity Signal: Towards a Depression Episodes Detection in Unipolar and Bipolar Patients

Diagnostics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Zanella-Calzada ◽  
Carlos Galván-Tejada ◽  
Nubia Chávez-Lamas ◽  
M. Gracia-Cortés ◽  
Rafael Magallanes-Quintanar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motor Activity ◽  
Wearable Device ◽  
Portable Devices ◽  
Motion Sensors ◽  
A Value ◽  
Bipolar Patients ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment ◽  
Automated Tool

Depression is a mental disorder characterized by recurrent sadness and loss of interest in the enjoyment of the positive aspects of life, in addition to fatigue, causing inability to perform daily activities, which leads to a loss of quality of life. To monitor depression (unipolar and bipolar patients), traditional methods rely on reports from patients; nevertheless, bias is commonly present in them. To overcome this problem, Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) reports have been widely used, which include data of the behavior, feelings and other types of activities recorded almost in real time through the use of portable devices and smartphones containing motion sensors. In this work a methodology was proposed to detect depressive subjects from control subjects based in the data of their motor activity, recorded by a wearable device, obtained from the “Depresjon” database. From the motor activity signals, the extraction of statistical features was carried out to subsequently feed a random forest classifier. Results show a sensitivity value of 0.867, referring that those subjects with presence of depression have a degree of 86.7% of being correctly classified, while the specificity shows a value of 0.919, referring that those subjects with absence of depression have a degree of 91.9% of being classified with a correct response, using the motor activity signal provided from the wearable device. Based on these results, it is concluded that the motor activity allows distinguishing between the two classes, providing a preliminary and automated tool to specialists for the diagnosis of depression.

scholarly journals Test-Retest Reliability of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiology Research

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (08) ◽  
pp. 599-612
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Octav Chipara ◽  
Xuyang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Speech Understanding ◽  
Listening Effort ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Talker Familiarity ◽  
Momentary Assessment ◽  
Context Characteristics

Abstract Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in situ data that describe respondents' current or recent experiences and related contexts in their natural environments. Audiology literature investigating the test-retest reliability of EMA is scarce. Purpose This article examines the test-retest reliability of EMA in measuring the characteristics of listening contexts and listening experiences. Research Design An observational study. Study Sample Fifty-one older adults with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger study that examined the effect of hearing aid technologies. The larger study had four trial conditions and outcome was measured using a smartphone-based EMA system. After completing the four trial conditions, participants repeated one of the conditions to examine the EMA test-retest reliability. The EMA surveys contained questions that assessed listening context characteristics including talker familiarity, talker location, and noise location, as well as listening experiences including speech understanding, listening effort, loudness satisfaction, and hearing aid satisfaction. The data from multiple EMA surveys collected by each participant were aggregated in each of the test and retest conditions. Test-retest correlation on the aggregated data was then calculated for each EMA survey question to determine the reliability of EMA. Results At the group level, listening context characteristics and listening experience did not change between the test and retest conditions. The test-retest correlation varied across the EMA questions, with the highest being the questions that assessed talker location (median r = 1.0), reverberation (r = 0.89), and speech understanding (r = 0.85), and the lowest being the items that quantified noise location (median r = 0.63), talker familiarity (r = 0.46), listening effort (r = 0.61), loudness satisfaction (r = 0.60), and hearing aid satisfaction (r = 0.61). Conclusion Several EMA questions yielded appropriate test-retest reliability results. The lower test-retest correlations for some EMA survey questions were likely due to fewer surveys completed by participants and poorly designed questions. Therefore, the present study stresses the importance of using validated questions in EMA. With sufficient numbers of surveys completed by respondents and with appropriately designed survey questions, EMA could have reasonable test-retest reliability in audiology research.

scholarly journals Individual Hearing Aid Benefit in Real Life Evaluated Using Ecological Momentary Assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 233121652199028
Author(s):  
Petra von Gablenz ◽  
Ulrik Kowalk ◽  
Jörg Bitzer ◽  
Markus Meis ◽  
Inga Holube
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Ema Data ◽  
First Time ◽  
Momentary Assessment

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) was used in 24 adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss who were seeking first hearing-aid (HA) fitting or HA renewal. At two stages in the aural rehabilitation process, just before HA fitting and after an average 3-month HA adjustment period, the participants used a smartphone-based EMA system for 3 to 4 days. A questionnaire app allowed for the description of the environmental context as well as assessments of various hearing-related dimensions and of well-being. In total, 2,042 surveys were collected. The main objectives of the analysis were threefold: First, describing the “auditory reality” of future and experienced HA users; second, examining the effects of HA fitting for individual participants, as well as for the subgroup of first-time HA-users; and third, reviewing whether the EMA data collected in the unaided condition predicted who ultimately decided for or against permanent HA use. The participants reported hearing-related disabilities across the full range of daily listening tasks, but communication events took the largest share. The effect of the HA intervention was small in experienced HA users. Generally, much larger changes and larger interindividual differences were observed in first-time compared with experienced HA users in all hearing-related dimensions. Changes were not correlated with hearing loss or with the duration of the HA adjustment period. EMA data collected in the unaided condition did not predict the cancelation of HA fitting. The study showed that EMA is feasible in a general population of HA candidates for establishing individual and multidimensional profiles of real-life hearing experiences.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Hearing Aids in Everyday Life Using Ecological Momentary Assessment: What Situations Are We Missing?

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3S) ◽  
pp. 591-609
Author(s):  
Nadja Schinkel-Bielefeld ◽  
Patricia Kunz ◽  
Anja Zutz ◽  
Bastian Buder
Keyword(s):  
Everyday Life ◽  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Sound Level ◽  
Memory Bias ◽  
Social Situations ◽  
Multiple Partners ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment

Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method to evaluate hearing aids in everyday life that uses repeated smartphone-based questionnaires to assess a situation as it happens. Although being ecologically valid and avoiding memory bias, this method may be prone to selection biases due to questionnaires being skipped or the phone not being carried along in certain situations. Purpose This investigation analyzed which situations are underrepresented in questionnaire responses and physically measured objective EMA data (e.g., sound level), and how such underrepresentation may depend on different triggers. Method In an EMA study, 20 subjects with hearing impairment provided daily information on reasons for missed data, that is, skipped questionnaires or missing connections between their phone and hearing aids. Results Participants often deliberately did not bring the study phone to social situations or skipped questionnaires because they considered it inappropriate, for example, during church service or when engaging in conversation. They answered fewer questions in conversations with multiple partners and were more likely to postpone questionnaires when not in quiet environments. Conclusion Data for social situations will likely be underrepresented in EMA. However, these situations are particularly important for the evaluation of hearing aids, as individuals with hearing impairment often have difficulties communicating in noisy situations. Thus, it is vital to optimize the design of the study to find a balance between avoiding memory bias and enabling subjects to report retrospectively on situations where phone usage may be difficult. The implications for several applications of EMA are discussed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12746849

scholarly journals Effects of directional hearing aid settings on different laboratory measures of spatial awareness perception

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Micha Lundbeck ◽  
Giso Grimm ◽  
Volker Hohmann ◽  
Lars Bramsløw ◽  
Tobias Neher
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Movement Direction ◽  
Directional Hearing ◽  
Spatial Awareness ◽  
Environmental Sound ◽  
Sound Sources ◽  
Target Signal ◽  
Laboratory Measures

Hearing loss can negatively influence the spatial hearing abilities of hearing-impaired listeners, not only in static but also in dynamic auditory environments. Therefore, ways of addressing these deficits with advanced hearing aid algorithms need to be investigated. In a previous study based on virtual acoustics and a computer simulation of different bilateral hearing aid fittings, we investigated auditory source movement detectability in older hearing- impaired (OHI) listeners. We found that two directional processing algorithms could substantially improve the detectability of left-right and near-far source movements in the presence of reverberation and multiple interfering sounds. In the current study, we carried out similar measurements with a loudspeaker-based setup and wearable hearing aids. We fitted a group of 15 OHI listeners with bilateral behind-the-ear devices that were programmed to have three different directional processing settings. Apart from source movement detectability, we assessed two other aspects of spatial awareness perception. Using a street scene with up to five environmental sound sources, the participants had to count the number of presented sources or to indicate the movement direction of a single target signal. The data analyses showed a clear influence of the number of concurrent sound sources and the starting position of the moving target signal on the participants’ performance, but no influence of the different hearing aid settings. Complementary artificial head recordings showed that the acoustic differences between the three hearing aid settings were rather small. Another explanation for the lack of effects of the tested hearing aid settings could be that the simulated street scenario was not sufficiently sensitive. Possible ways of improving the sensitivity of the laboratory measures while maintaining high ecological validity and complexity are discussed.

scholarly journals Feasibility of Ecological Momentary Assessment of Hearing Difficulties Encountered by Hearing Aid Users

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 497-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gino Galvez ◽  
Mitchel B. Turbin ◽  
Emily J. Thielman ◽  
Joseph A. Istvan ◽  
Judy A. Andrews ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecological Momentary Assessment ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Ecological Momentary ◽  
Momentary Assessment ◽  
Hearing Difficulties

Comparison of Hearing-Aid Gain Using Functional, Coupler, and Probe-Tube Measurements

1986 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Mason ◽  
Gerald R. Popelka
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Average Difference ◽  
Ear Canal ◽  
Tube System ◽  
Acoustic Characteristics ◽  
Standard Deviations ◽  
Functional Gain

Measurements of functional gain were compared first to coupler gain for 57 subjects using one of three hearing aid—earmold combinations and second to probe-tube gain for 12 subjects using in-the-ear hearing aids. The average difference between functional and coupler gain plotted as a function of frequency yielded results that were similar to previous reports, with the greatest effects occurring at 3000 and 4000 Hz. Significant differences were seen among hearing aid—earmold combinations at 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. Standard deviations for measurements between 750 and 2000 Hz were less than 5 dB and could be explained by variability of functional gain measures associated with test—retest variability of thresholds measured in a sound field. Below 750 Hz and above 2000 Hz, standard deviations exceeded 5 dB. The greater variability may be explained by differences in earmold venting, acoustic characteristics of the ear canal, and stimuli used to measure functional and coupler gain. Neither room nor hearing-aid noise appeared to affect the results significantly. When functional gain was compared to insertion gain measured with a probe-tube system, the average difference across frequencies was less than 1 dB. The variability of the differences at all frequencies, with the exception of 6000 Hz, was within the range reported for functional gain measurements. It was concluded that functional gain can be accurately estimated using probe-tube measurements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document