Don Luong Nguyen, Olivier Valentin, Alexandre Lehmann, François Prévost
{"title":"单侧耳聋患者聆听努力程度的多模态调查","authors":"Don Luong Nguyen, Olivier Valentin, Alexandre Lehmann, François Prévost","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>For patients with single-sided deafness (SSD), choosing between bone conduction devices (BCDs) and contralateral routing of signal hearing aids (CROS) is challenging due to mixed evidence on their benefits. The lack of clear guidelines complicates clinical decision making. This study explores whether realistic spatial listening measures can reveal a clinically valid benefit and if the optimal choice varies among patients. By assessing listening effort through objective and subjective measures, this research evaluates the efficacy of BCD and CROS, seeking to provide evidence-based recommendation anchored in the effectiveness of these devices in real-world scenarios.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Thirteen participants with SSD performed the Hearing-in-Noise Test while using a BCD, CROS hearing aids, and no hearing device (unaided). Subjective listening effort was assessed using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaire after each testing block. An objective measurement of listening effort was obtained by measuring the peak pupil dilation (PPD) during the task using eye tracking glasses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference of either PPD or NASA-TLX scores was observed between the three device conditions (BCD, CROS, and unaided). However, a trend is noted toward reduced PPD in the BCD and CROS conditions. The lack of significance in pupillometry results does not stem from technical issues, as the study's findings confirm its effectiveness in measuring task difficulty, and validate its use for assessing listening effort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the results from the present study cannot significantly differentiate the hearing devices, we observe a trend that points toward reduced listening effort when using hearing devices. Future investigations should aim to optimize metrics of listening effort, perhaps making them clinically useful on an individual level.</p>","PeriodicalId":49241,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Multimodal Investigation of Listening Effort in Single-Sided Deafness.\",\"authors\":\"Don Luong Nguyen, Olivier Valentin, Alexandre Lehmann, François Prévost\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>For patients with single-sided deafness (SSD), choosing between bone conduction devices (BCDs) and contralateral routing of signal hearing aids (CROS) is challenging due to mixed evidence on their benefits. The lack of clear guidelines complicates clinical decision making. This study explores whether realistic spatial listening measures can reveal a clinically valid benefit and if the optimal choice varies among patients. By assessing listening effort through objective and subjective measures, this research evaluates the efficacy of BCD and CROS, seeking to provide evidence-based recommendation anchored in the effectiveness of these devices in real-world scenarios.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Thirteen participants with SSD performed the Hearing-in-Noise Test while using a BCD, CROS hearing aids, and no hearing device (unaided). Subjective listening effort was assessed using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaire after each testing block. An objective measurement of listening effort was obtained by measuring the peak pupil dilation (PPD) during the task using eye tracking glasses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant difference of either PPD or NASA-TLX scores was observed between the three device conditions (BCD, CROS, and unaided). However, a trend is noted toward reduced PPD in the BCD and CROS conditions. The lack of significance in pupillometry results does not stem from technical issues, as the study's findings confirm its effectiveness in measuring task difficulty, and validate its use for assessing listening effort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the results from the present study cannot significantly differentiate the hearing devices, we observe a trend that points toward reduced listening effort when using hearing devices. Future investigations should aim to optimize metrics of listening effort, perhaps making them clinically useful on an individual level.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49241,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Audiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Audiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00073\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00073","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Multimodal Investigation of Listening Effort in Single-Sided Deafness.
Purpose: For patients with single-sided deafness (SSD), choosing between bone conduction devices (BCDs) and contralateral routing of signal hearing aids (CROS) is challenging due to mixed evidence on their benefits. The lack of clear guidelines complicates clinical decision making. This study explores whether realistic spatial listening measures can reveal a clinically valid benefit and if the optimal choice varies among patients. By assessing listening effort through objective and subjective measures, this research evaluates the efficacy of BCD and CROS, seeking to provide evidence-based recommendation anchored in the effectiveness of these devices in real-world scenarios.
Method: Thirteen participants with SSD performed the Hearing-in-Noise Test while using a BCD, CROS hearing aids, and no hearing device (unaided). Subjective listening effort was assessed using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaire after each testing block. An objective measurement of listening effort was obtained by measuring the peak pupil dilation (PPD) during the task using eye tracking glasses.
Results: No significant difference of either PPD or NASA-TLX scores was observed between the three device conditions (BCD, CROS, and unaided). However, a trend is noted toward reduced PPD in the BCD and CROS conditions. The lack of significance in pupillometry results does not stem from technical issues, as the study's findings confirm its effectiveness in measuring task difficulty, and validate its use for assessing listening effort.
Conclusions: Although the results from the present study cannot significantly differentiate the hearing devices, we observe a trend that points toward reduced listening effort when using hearing devices. Future investigations should aim to optimize metrics of listening effort, perhaps making them clinically useful on an individual level.
期刊介绍:
Mission: AJA publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to clinical audiology methods and issues, and serves as an outlet for discussion of related professional and educational issues and ideas. The journal is an international outlet for research on clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of hearing and balance disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. The clinical orientation of the journal allows for the publication of reports on audiology as implemented nationally and internationally, including novel clinical procedures, approaches, and cases. AJA seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of clinical audiology, including audiologic/aural rehabilitation; balance and balance disorders; cultural and linguistic diversity; detection, diagnosis, prevention, habilitation, rehabilitation, and monitoring of hearing loss; hearing aids, cochlear implants, and hearing-assistive technology; hearing disorders; lifespan perspectives on auditory function; speech perception; and tinnitus.