单侧耳聋患者聆听努力程度的多模态调查

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对于单侧耳聋(SSD)患者来说,在骨传导设备(BCD)和对侧信号路由助听器(CROS)之间做出选择具有挑战性,因为有关这两种助听器益处的证据不一。由于缺乏明确的指导方针,临床决策变得更加复杂。本研究探讨了现实空间聆听测量是否能揭示临床有效的益处,以及不同患者的最佳选择是否存在差异。本研究通过客观和主观措施评估听力努力程度,从而评估 BCD 和 CROS 的功效,并根据这些设备在真实世界场景中的有效性提供循证建议:13 名患有 SSD 的参与者在使用 BCD、CROS 助听器和无助听器(无辅助)的情况下进行了噪声中听力测试。每个测试块结束后,使用美国国家航空航天局任务负荷指数(NASA-TLX)问卷对主观听力强度进行评估。使用眼动仪测量任务过程中的瞳孔放大峰值 (PPD),从而对听力强度进行客观测量:结果:在三种设备条件(BCD、CROS 和无辅助)下,PPD 或 NASA-TLX 分数均无明显差异。不过,在 BCD 和 CROS 条件下,PPD 有降低的趋势。瞳孔测量结果缺乏显著性并不是因为技术问题,因为研究结果证实了瞳孔测量在测量任务难度方面的有效性,并验证了其在评估听力努力程度方面的应用:尽管本研究的结果无法显著区分不同的听力设备,但我们观察到一种趋势,即使用听力设备时听力强度会降低。未来的研究应着眼于优化听力强度指标,使其在个人层面上发挥临床作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Audiology
American Journal of Audiology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
163
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信