Paired-Comparison Hearing Aid Preferences: Evaluation of an Unforced-Choice Paradigm

Abstract

Fifteen normal-hearing listeners compared nine frequency-response slopes in a round-robin paired-comparison tournament as they listened to passages of connected discourse against a competing noise background at a +3–dB signal-to-noise ratio. All participants listened in an AB paradigm, in which they were forced to choose which of two signals (A or B) produced better speech intelligibility, and an ABN paradigm, in which they were allowed a third choice of No Preference (N). For both paradigms, listeners generally preferred frequency shaping that either cut low frequencies or boosted high frequencies, and intra- and intersession reliability was high overall. Although listeners’ most-preferred responses tended to converge on the same frequency-response slope in the two paradigms, the reliability of these responses was significantly higher for ABN than for AB. The use of the ABN paired-comparison paradigm deserves further study, therefore, as a method to fit multimemory hearing aids.

Abbreviations: AB = traditional (forced-choice) paired-comparison paradigm, ABN = experimental (unforced-choice) paired-comparison paradigm, RSIR = Revised Speech Intelligibility Rating test, SIR = Speech Intelligibility Rating test, SNR = signal-to-noise ratio

Keywords

Forced choice - hearing aid fitting - multimemory hearing aids - paired comparisons - reliability - speech intelligibility - unforced choice

Publication History

Article published online:
01 March 2022

• REFERENCES

• Byrne D. (1992). Key issues in hearing aid selection and evaluation. J Am Acad Audiol 3:67–80.
• Corso JF. (1967). Theories of sensory discrimination. In: The Experimental Psychology of Sensory Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 409–460.
• Cox RM, McDaniel DM. (1989). Development of the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparison. J Speech Hear Res 32:347–352.
• Harris RW, Goldstein DP. (1979). Effects of room reverberation upon hearing aid quality judgments. Audiology 18:253–262.
• Jeffers J. (1960). Quality judgment in hearing aid selection. J Speech Hear Disord 25:259–266.
• Kuk FK. (1994). Use of paired comparisons in hearing aid fittings. In: Valente M, ed. Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. New York: Thieme, 108–135.
• Kuk FK, Lau C. (1995). The application of binomial probability theory to paired comparison judgments. Am J Audiol 4(l):37–42.
• Kuk F, Pape N. (1992). The reliability of a modified simplex procedure in hearing aid frequency response selection. J Speech Hear Res 35:418–429.
• Leijon A, Lindkvist A, Ringdahl A, Israelsson B. (1991). Sound quality and speech reception for prescribed hearing aid frequency responses. Ear Hear 12:251–260.
• Levitt H, White REC. (1978). Development of a Protocol for the Prescriptive Fitting of a Wearable Master Hearing Aid. Final report. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (NIH-N01–NS-4–2323).
• McGee VE. (1964). Semantic components of the quality of processed speech. J Speech Hear Res 7:310–323. Neuman AC, Levitt H, Mills R, Schwander T. (1987). An evaluation of three adaptive hearing aid selection strategies. J Acoust Soc Am 82:1967–1976.
• Preminger JE, Neuman AC, Bakke MH, Walters D, Levitt H. (2000). An examination of the practicality of the simplex procedure. Ear Hear 21:177–193.
• Punch JL. (1978). Quality judgments of hearing aid- processed speech and music by normal and otopathologic listeners. J Am Audit Soc 3:179–188.
• Punch JL, Beck EL. (1980). Low-frequency response of hearing aids and judgments of aided speech quality. J Speech Hear Disord 45:325–335.
• Punch JL, Howard MT. (1978). Listener-assessed intelligibility of hearing aid-processed speech. J Am Audit Soc 4:69–76.
• Punch JL, Montgomery AA, Schwartz DM, Walden BE, Prosek RA, Howard MT. (1980). Multidimensional scaling of quality judgments of speech signals processed by hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 68:458–466.
• Punch JL, Parker C. (1981). Pairwise listener preferences in hearing aid evaluation. J Speech Hear Res 24:366–374.
• Punch J, Rakerd B. (1993). Loudness matching of signals spectrally shaped by a simulated hearing aid. J Speech Hear Res 36:357–364.
• Punch JL, Robb R. (1992). Prescriptive hearing aid fitting by parameter adjustment and selection. J Am Acad Audiol 3:94–100.
• Punch JL, Robb R, Shovels AH. (1994). Aided listener preferences in laboratory versus real-world environments. Ear Hear 15:50–61.
• Rakerd B, Punch J, Hooks W, Amlani A, Vander Velde TJ. (1999). Loudness discrimination of speech signals spectrally shaped by a simulated hearing aid. J Speech Lang Hear Res 42:1285–1294.
• Schwartz DM, Walden BE, Prosek RA. (1979, November). Electroacoustic Correlates of Hearing Aid Quality Judgments. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Atlanta, GA.
• Speaks C, Trine TD, Crain TR, Niccum N. (1994). A revised Speech Intelligibility Rating (RSIR) test: listeners with normal hearing. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 110:75–83.
• Stelmachowicz PG, Lewis DE, Carney E. (1994). Preferred hearing aid-frequency responses in simulated listening environments. J Speech Hear Res 37:712–719.
• Stevens SS. (1951). Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. In: Stevens SS, ed. Handbook of Experimental Psychology. New York: John Wiley, 1–49.
• Studebaker GA, Bisset JD, VanOrt DM, Hoffnung S. (1982). Paired comparison judgments of relative intelligibility in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 72:80–92.
• Witter HL, Goldstein DP. (1971). Quality judgments of hearing aid transduced speech. J Speech Hear Res 14:312–322.
• Zerlin S. (1962). Anew approach to hearing aid selection. J Speech Hear Res 5:370–376.