Modifications of the MUlti stimulus test with Hidden Reference and Anchor (MUSHRA) for use in audiology

Abstract Objective: Two modifications of the standardised MUlti Stimulus test with Hidden Reference and Anchor (MUSHRA), namely MUSHRA simple and MUSHRA drag&drop, were implemented and evaluated together with the original test method. The modifications were designed to maximise the accessibility of MUSHRA for elderly and technically non-experienced listeners, who constitute the typical target group in hearing aid evaluation. Design: Three MUSHRA variants were assessed based on subjective and objective measures, e.g. test–retest reliability, discrimination ability, time exposure and overall preference. With each method, participants repeated the task to rate the quality of several hearing aid algorithms four times. Study sample: Fifty listeners grouped into five subject classes were tested, including elderly and technically non-experienced participants with normal and impaired hearing. Normal-hearing, technically experienced students served as controls. Results: Both modifications can be used to obtain compatible rating results. Both were preferred over the classical MUSHRA procedure. Technically experienced listeners performed best with the modification MUSHRA drag&drop. Conclusions: The comprehensive comparison of the MUSHRA variants demonstrates that the intuitive modification MUSHRA drag&drop can be generally recommended. However, considering e.g. specific evaluation demands, we suggest a differentiated and careful application of listening test methods.

[1]  Harald Künemund,et al.  The technology acceptance puzzle , 2014, Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie.

[2]  Giso Grimm,et al.  Implementation and Perceptual Evaluation of a Simulation Method for Coupled Rooms in Higher Order Ambisonics , 2014 .

[3]  T. Dau,et al.  Influence of high-frequency audibility on the perceived distance of sounds , 2014 .

[4]  Method for the subjective assessment of intermediate quality level of , 2014 .

[5]  James M. Kates,et al.  Quality of voices processed by hearing aids: Intra-talker differences , 2013 .

[6]  C. Limb,et al.  Musical Sound Quality Impairments in Cochlear Implant (CI) Users as a Function of Limited High-Frequency Perception , 2012, Trends in amplification.

[7]  Charles J. Limb,et al.  Assessment of Sound Quality Perception in Cochlear Implant Users During Music Listening , 2012, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[8]  Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft,et al.  Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft , 2012 .

[9]  Nick Zacharov,et al.  eGauge—A Measure of Assessor Expertise in Audio Quality Evaluations , 2010 .

[10]  Erin C Schafer,et al.  Application of Paired-Comparison Methods to Hearing Aids , 2009, Trends in amplification.

[11]  Giso Grimm,et al.  Increase and Subjective Evaluation of Feedback Stability in Hearing Aids by a Binaural Coherence-Based Noise Reduction Scheme , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[12]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  PEMO-Q—A New Method for Objective Audio Quality Assessment Using a Model of Auditory Perception , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

[13]  Giso Grimm,et al.  The master hearing Aid : A PC-based platform for algorithm development and evaluation , 2006 .

[14]  Daniel Hardy,et al.  Networks: Internet, Telephony, Multimedia , 2003 .

[15]  Hartmut R. Pf Acoustic Correlates of the IPA Vowel Diagram , 2003 .

[16]  Hartmut R. Pfitzinger,et al.  Acoustic correlates of the IPA vowel diagram , 2003 .

[17]  G Keidser,et al.  NAL-NL1 procedure for fitting nonlinear hearing aids: characteristics and comparisons with other procedures. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[18]  M. Storandt,et al.  The relation between psychometric test performance and physical performance in older adults. , 1999, The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences.

[19]  Hartmut R. Pfitzinger,et al.  Local speech rate as a combination of syllable and phone rate , 1998, ICSLP.

[20]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[21]  Gary W. Elko,et al.  A simple adaptive first-order differential microphone , 1995, Proceedings of 1995 Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Accoustics.

[22]  W. Heiser,et al.  The role of permutation tests in exploratory multivariate data analysis , 1995 .

[23]  Pascal Schlich GRAPES: A METHOD AND A SAS® PROGRAM FOR GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF ASSESSOR PERFORMANCES , 1994 .

[24]  J D Durrant,et al.  Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. , 1993, American journal of audiology.

[25]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[26]  S. Granick,et al.  The effect of education on the decline of psychometric test performance with age. , 1967, Journal of gerontology.

[27]  Francis,et al.  Paired Comparisons as a Fine-Tuning Tool in Hearing Aid Fittings , 2022 .