Background: Previous research has shown that hearing aid wearers can successfully self-train their instruments’ gain-frequency response and compression parameters in everyday situations. Combining hearing aids with a smartphone introduces additional computing power, memory, and a graphical user interface that may enable greater setting personalization. To explore the benefits of self-training with a smartphone-based hearing system, a parameter space was chosen with four possible combinations of microphone mode (omnidirectional and directional) and noise reduction state (active and off). The baseline for comparison was the “untrained system,” that is, the manufacturer’s algorithm for automatically selecting microphone mode and noise reduction state based on acoustic environment. The “trained system” first learned each individual’s preferences, self-entered via a smartphone in real-world situations, to build a trained model. The system then predicted the optimal setting (among available choices) using an inference engine, which considered the trained model and current context (e.g., sound environment, location, and time).
Purpose: To develop a smartphone-based prototype hearing system that can be trained to learn preferred user settings. Determine whether user study participants showed a preference for trained over untrained system settings.
Research Design: An experimental within-participants study. Participants used a prototype hearing system—comprising two hearing aids, Android smartphone, and body-worn gateway device—for ˜6 weeks.
Study Sample: Sixteen adults with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss (HL) (ten males, six females; mean age = 55.5 yr). Fifteen had ≥6 mo of experience wearing hearing aids, and 14 had previous experience using smartphones.
Intervention: Participants were fitted and instructed to perform daily comparisons of settings (“listening evaluations”) through a smartphone-based software application called Hearing Aid Learning and Inference Controller (HALIC). In the four-week-long training phase, HALIC recorded individual listening preferences along with sensor data from the smartphone—including environmental sound classification, sound level, and location—to build trained models. In the subsequent two-week-long validation phase, participants performed blinded listening evaluations comparing settings predicted by the trained system (“trained settings”) to those suggested by the hearing aids’ untrained system (“untrained settings”).
Data Collection and Analysis: We analyzed data collected on the smartphone and hearing aids during the study. We also obtained audiometric and demographic information.
Results: Overall, the 15 participants with valid data significantly preferred trained settings to untrained settings (paired-samples t test). Seven participants had a significant preference for trained settings, while one had a significant preference for untrained settings (binomial test). The remaining seven participants had nonsignificant preferences. Pooling data across participants, the proportion of times that each setting was chosen in a given environmental sound class was on average very similar. However, breaking down the data by participant revealed strong and idiosyncratic individual preferences. Fourteen participants reported positive feelings of clarity, competence, and mastery when training via HALIC.
Conclusions: The obtained data, as well as subjective participant feedback, indicate that smartphones could become viable tools to train hearing aids. Individuals who are tech savvy and have milder HL seem well suited to take advantages of the benefits offered by training with a smartphone.
Developing the New Zealand Soundmap: An exploration of soundmap practice, site listening, locative media and the sound environment
