Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 8, 2025
Determining Ultrasonic Vocalization Preferences in Mice using a Two-choice Playback Test
Published on: September 3, 2015
Live Evaluation of Auditory Preference, a Laboratory Test for Evaluating Auditory Preference
Karolina Smeds1, Josefina Larsson1, Martin Dahlquist1
1ORCA Europe, WS Audiology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Background:
Many laboratory tests are performed under unrealistic conditions. Tasks, such as repeating words or sentences, are performed in simple loudspeaker setups. Currently, many research groups focus on realistic audiovisual laboratory setups. Fewer groups focus on the tasks performed during testing.
Purpose:
A semicontrolled laboratory test method focusing on the tasks performed, the Live Evaluation of Auditory Preference (LEAP) was evaluated. LEAP is developed to evaluate hearing-instrument performance in test scenarios that represent everyday listening situations.
Research Design:
LEAP was evaluated in a feasibility study. The method comprises conversations between a test participant and one or two test leaders, enabling evaluation of the test participant's own voice. The method allows for visual cues (when relevant) and introduce social pressure to participate in the conversation. In addition, other everyday listening tasks, such as watching television (TV) and listening to radio, are included. In this study, LEAP was used to assess preference for two hearing aid settings using paired comparisons.
Study Sample:
Nineteen experienced hearing aid users (13 females and 6 males; mean age 74 years), participated in the study.
Data Collection And Analysis:
LEAP was performed at three visits to the laboratory. In addition, participants conducted a field trial where the two hearing aid programs were compared using Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMA). During LEAP testing, six mandatory test cases were used, representing commonly occurring everyday listening situations. Individual test cases were also included, selected from individually experienced listening situations during the field trial. Within- and between-session reliability of the LEAP test was investigated. Validity was investigated by comparing the LEAP and the EMA results.
Results:
For the current signal-processing evaluation, the test was judged to have acceptable reliability and validity. The inclusion of individually selected test cases increased the representativeness of the LEAP test, but it did not substantially alter the results in the current study.
Conclusion:
LEAP in its current implementation seems suitable for investigating signal-processing preference in the laboratory in a way that is indicative of everyday preference. The LEAP method represents one step forward in bringing the real world into the laboratory.
