Back

Towards an extended classification of noise-distortion preferences by modeling longitudinal dynamics of listening choices

Angonese, G.; Buhl, M.; Goesswein, J. A.; Kollmeier, B.; Hildebrandt, A.

2024-10-27 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2024.10.25.24316092 medRxiv
Show abstract

Individuals have different preferences for setting hearing aid (HA) algorithms that reduce ambient noise but introduce signal distortions. "Noise haters" prefer greater noise reduction, even at the expense of signal quality. "Distortion haters" accept higher noise levels to avoid signal distortion. These preferences were assumed to be stable over time, and individuals were classified solely on the basis of these stable, trait scores. However, the question remains as to how stable individual listening preferences are and whether day-to-day state-related variability needs to be considered as a further criterion for classification. We designed a mobile task to measure noise-distortion preferences over two weeks in an ecological momentary assessment study with N = 185 (106 f, Mage = 63.1, SDage = 6.5) unaided individuals with subjective hearing difficulties. Latent State-Trait Autoregressive (LST-AR) modeling was used to evaluate stability and dynamics of individual listening preferences. The analysis revealed a significant amount of state-related variance. The model has been extended to a mixture LST-AR model for data-driven classification, taking into account trait and state components of listening preferences. In addition to successful identification of noise haters, distortion haters and a third intermediate class based on longitudinal, outside of the lab data, we further differentiated individuals with different degrees of variability in listening preferences. It follows that individualisation of HA fitting could be improved by assessing individual preferences along the noise-distortion trade-off, and the day-to-day variability of these preferences needs to be taken into account for some individuals more than others.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.9%
2
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 4%
10.1%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 18%
9.9%
4
Hearing Research
54 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.1%
5
Behavior Research Methods
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.5%
6
Trends in Hearing
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.5%
50% of probability mass above
7
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
Ear & Hearing
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
10
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
11
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
12
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
13
Cortex
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
14
Frontiers in Psychiatry
87 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
15
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
16
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.1%
17
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.1%
19
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
20
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
21
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.9%
22
Frontiers in Psychology
56 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
23
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
24
Communications Psychology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
25
Consciousness and Cognition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
26
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
27
Computational Psychiatry
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
28
Journal of Psychiatric Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%
29
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
30
Human Brain Mapping
329 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%