Affiliation:
1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Abstract
Realistic outcome measures that reflect everyday hearing challenges are needed to assess hearing aid and cochlear implant (CI) fitting. Literature suggests that listening effort measures may be more sensitive to differences between hearing-device settings than established speech intelligibility measures when speech intelligibility is near maximum. Which method provides the most effective measurement of listening effort for this purpose is currently unclear. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of two tests for measuring changes in listening effort in CI users due to signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) differences, as would arise from different hearing-device settings. By comparing the effect size of SNR differences on listening effort measures with test–retest differences, the study evaluated the suitability of these tests for clinical use. Nineteen CI users underwent two listening effort tests at two SNRs (+4 and +8 dB relative to individuals’ 50% speech perception threshold). We employed dual-task paradigms—a sentence-final word identification and recall test (SWIRT) and a sentence verification test (SVT)—to assess listening effort at these two SNRs. Our results show a significant difference in listening effort between the SNRs for both test methods, although the effect size was comparable to the test–retest difference, and the sensitivity was not superior to speech intelligibility measures. Thus, the implementations of SVT and SWIRT used in this study are not suitable for clinical use to measure listening effort differences of this magnitude in individual CI users. However, they can be used in research involving CI users to analyze group data.
Reference44 articles.
1. Perceptual learning of time-compressed and natural fast speech
2. Akaike H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Paper presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, 1973.
3. Analyzing reaction times