Comparing hearing aid settings with ecological momentary assessment using direct and indirect approaches

Area of Science:

• Audiology
• Hearing Science
• Human-Computer Interaction

Background:

• Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is crucial for real-world hearing program (HP) evaluation.
• Existing EMA methods include indirect comparison (rating one HP per period) and direct comparison (switching HPs within a survey).

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effectiveness of direct versus indirect EMA comparison methods for evaluating hearing programs.
• To assess how different HP features (gain, noise reduction) influence the choice of EMA method.
• To provide recommendations for designing future EMA studies in audiology.

Main Methods:

• A randomized crossover design with 30 participants evaluated three HPs with varying gain and noise reduction.
• Data collection occurred over 15 days, assessing sound quality, hearing aid satisfaction, and speech understanding.
• Participants used both direct and indirect comparison methods.

Main Results:

• Direct comparison yielded higher contrast for gain-differing HPs across all evaluated attributes.
• For noise reduction features, only direct comparison revealed significant differences in speech understanding.
• Direct comparison involved fewer inconvenient situations (e.g., phone use, driving) but was perceived as more burdensome.

Conclusions:

• The choice between direct and indirect EMA methods for HP evaluation is context-dependent.
• Direct comparison excels at detecting immediate perceptual differences, while indirect methods may be better for long-term effects.
• EMA study design should consider the trade-offs between detecting differences, representativeness, and participant burden.