Individual Hearing Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Users Influence Social Engagement and Listening Behavior in Everyday Life
Individual Hearing Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Users Influence Social Engagement and Listening Behavior in Everyday Life
复制标题
人工耳蜗使用者的个人听力结果影响日常生活中的社交参与和听力行为
DOI：
10.1044/2021_jslhr-21-00249
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Nelson, Peggy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O'Neill, Erin R.;Basile, John D.;Nelson, Peggy
目的本研究的目的是评估人工耳蜗（CI）用户和听力正常（NH）成年人在日常生活中的听力行为和社交参与度，并将这些行为与客观听力结果联系起来。方法使用智能手机应用程序收集的生态瞬时评估（EMA）用于探究CI用户和年龄匹配的NH成年人的听力行为模式，以检测日常生活中社交参与和听力行为的差异。参与者每 2 小时完成一次非常短的调查，以提供典型的日常倾听和社交的快照，以及在一天结束时进行的较长的反思性调查，以评估倾听策略和应对行为。还在实验室环境中进行了语音感知测试以及伴随的任务难度评级，以揭示客观和主观聆听行为之间可能存在的相关性。结果语音清晰度测试和 EMA 响应之间的比较表明，与表现较高的 CI 用户及其 NH 同龄人相比，表现较差的 CI 用户在家中花费更多时间，与他人交谈的时间更少。 CI 用户和 NH 听众对听力困难的感知也有很大不同，CI 用户报告说，尽管语音感知表现较差，但听力困难很小。然而，无论是CI用户还是NH听众，大部分时间都花在他们认为“不难”的聆听环境中。 CI 用户还报告使用了几种补偿性听力策略，例如视觉提示，而 NH 听众则没有。结论总体而言，数据表明个人 CI 用户和 NH 成年人在日常生活中导航和操纵听力和社交环境的方式存在系统性差异。
PurposeThe goal of this study was to assess the listening behavior and social engagement of cochlear implant (CI) users and normal-hearing (NH) adults in daily life and relate these actions to objective hearing outcomes.MethodEcological momentary assessments (EMAs) collected using a smartphone app were used to probe patterns of listening behavior in CI users and age-matched NH adults to detect differences in social engagement and listening behavior in daily life. Participants completed very short surveys every 2 hr to provide snapshots of typical, everyday listening and socializing, as well as longer, reflective surveys at the end of the day to assess listening strategies and coping behavior. Speech perception testing, with accompanying ratings of task difficulty, was also performed in a lab setting to uncover possible correlations between objective and subjective listening behavior.ResultsComparisons between speech intelligibility testing and EMA responses showed poorer performing CI users spending more time at home and less time conversing with others than higher performing CI users and their NH peers. Perception of listening difficulty was also very different for CI users and NH listeners, with CI users reporting little difficulty despite poor speech perception performance. However, both CI users and NH listeners spent most of their time in listening environments they considered “not difficult.” CI users also reported using several compensatory listening strategies, such as visual cues, whereas NH listeners did not.ConclusionOverall, the data indicate systematic differences between how individual CI users and NH adults navigate and manipulate listening and social environments in everyday life.