Evaluation of an objective listening effort measure in a selective, multi-speaker listening task using different hearing aid settings

Speaker recognition in a multi-speaker environment is a complex listening task that requires effort to be solved. Especially people with hearing loss show an increased listening effort in demanding listening situations compared to normal hearing people. However, a standardized method to quantify listening effort does not exist yet. Recently we have shown a possible way to determine listening effort objectively. The aim of this study was to validate the proposed objective measure in a challenging, true-to-life listening situation, and to get an insight on the influence of different hearing aid (HA) settings on the listening effort using the proposed measure. To achieve this we investigated the influence of four different HA settings and two different listening task difficulties (LTD) on the listening effort of people with hearing loss in a selective, real-speech listening task. HA setting A, B and C all had an adaptive compression with static characteristic, but differed in the gain and compression settings (more and less gain and more and less linear). Setting D had an adaptive compression whose characteristic was situation-dependent. To quantify the listening effort the ongoing oscillatory EEG activity was recorded as the basis to calculate the objective measure (OLEosc). By way of comparison a subjective listening effort score was determined on an individual basis (SLEscr). The results show that the OLEosc maps the SLEscr well in every of the tested conditions. Furthermore, the results also suggest that OLEosc might be more sensitive to small variances in listening effort than the employed subjective rating scale.

[1]  A. Stewart,et al.  Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper’ , 2014, International journal of audiology.

[2]  Gurjit Singh,et al.  Effects of Age on Auditory and Cognitive Processing: Implications for Hearing Aid Fitting and Audiologic Rehabilitation , 2006, Trends in amplification.

[3]  L E Humes Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  Simon Carlile,et al.  Switch Attention to Listen , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[5]  Daniel J. Strauss,et al.  Dynamic interlaminar and thalamocortical interaction supported by top-down beta rhythms , 2015, 2015 7th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER).

[6]  Daniel J. Strauss,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of listening effort: neurodynamical modeling and measurement , 2010, Cognitive Neurodynamics.

[7]  S. R. Jammalamadaka,et al.  Directional Statistics, I , 2011 .

[8]  Philipp Berens,et al.  CircStat: AMATLABToolbox for Circular Statistics , 2009, Journal of Statistical Software.

[9]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Acoustic Detail Guides Attention Allocation in a Selective Listening Task , 2015, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[10]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[11]  Judy R. Dubno,et al.  Spatial Separation Benefit for Unaided and Aided Listening , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[12]  Daniel J. Strauss,et al.  Objective assessment of listening effort in the oscillatory EEG: Comparison of different hearing aid configurations , 2014, 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[13]  Daniel J. Strauss,et al.  Neural correlates of listening effort related factors: Influence of age and hearing impairment , 2013, Brain Research Bulletin.