Self-Reported Listening-Related Effort and Fatigue in Hearing-Impaired Adults
Self-Reported Listening-Related Effort and Fatigue in Hearing-Impaired Adults
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/aud.0000000000000361
复制
发表时间：
2017-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Munro, Kevin J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alhanbali, Sara;Dawes, Piers;Munro, Kevin J.
目的：听力损失可能会增加与听力相关的工作和疲劳，这是由于需要注意并理解听觉信息所需的精神努力。因为很少有尝试量化听力损失的听众的自我报告的努力和疲劳的尝试，所以这是本研究的目的。设计：参与者包括三组听力受损的成年人：（1）助听器用户（HA，HA，HA， n = 50； 19岁的女性范围= 55至85岁）； （2）人工耳蜗使用者（CI，n = 50; 26名男性，24名女性；年龄范围= 55至80岁）； （3）单方面的耳聋（SSD，n = 50; 30男性，20个女性；年龄范围= 58至80岁）。还有一个对照组的成年人在频率下以30 dB HL的听力屏幕：两只耳朵的500、1000、2000和4000 Hz（n = 50; 22; 22; 22雄性，28个女性;年龄范围= 55至78年）。疲劳评估量表（FAS）用于量化疲劳。 FAS是一种通用的标准化自我报告量表，该量表由10个使用五点李克特量表进行评分的项目组成。为本研究开发的努力评估量表（EAS）由六个问题组成，其响应在视觉模拟量表上提供的范围为0至10个。分辨率：所有听力障碍的组报告与对照相比，所有听力障碍的组报告都大大增加了努力和疲劳。团体。对照组的中位疲劳得分为14，三个听力受损组的中位数分数约为22。对照组的中位数得分为20，三个听力障碍小组的得分约为70。三组听力受损成年人之间的平均努力或疲劳没有显着差异。疲劳和努力评分之间存在弱的正相关性（r = 0.40，p <0.05）。对于HA，CI和SSD组，极度疲劳的参与者比例分别为22％，10％和22％。对于HA，CI和SSD组，极端努力的人的比例分别为46％，54％和52％。使用两个问卷中的个体问题进行因素分析的结果表明，这些问题已加载到两个因素中：所有FAS问题的“疲劳”因素和所有EAS问题的“努力”因素。报告日常生活中高度的听力和疲劳。不同听力受损的群体之间与听力相关的努力和疲劳的相似性表明，听力障碍的严重程度并不能预测聆听体验的这些方面。因子分析表明，FAS和EAS评估了两个不同的维度。 FAS和EAS之间的低相关性意味着无法通过在单个听众中自我报告的努力来可靠地预测疲劳。
Objective: Hearing loss may increase listening-related effort and fatigue due to the increased mental exertion required to attend to, and understand, an auditory message. Because there have been few attempts to quantify self-reported effort and fatigue in listeners with hearing loss, that was the aim of the present study.Design: Participants included three groups of hearing-impaired adults: (1) hearing aid users (HA, n = 50; 31 male, 19 female; age range = 55 to 85 years); (2) cochlear implant users (CI, n = 50; 26 male, 24 female; age range = 55 to 80 years); and (3) single sided deafness (SSD, n = 50; 30 male, 20 female; age range = 58 to 80 years). There was also a control group of adults who passed a hearing screen at 30 dB HL at the frequencies: 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz in both ears (n = 50; 22 male, 28 female; age range = 55 to 78 years). The fatigue assessment scale (FAS) was used to quantify fatigue. The FAS is a generic standardized self-report scale consisting of 10 items that are scored using a five-point Likert scale. An effort assessment scale (EAS), developed for the present study, consisted of six questions with responses provided on a visual analog scale that ranges from 0 to 10.Results: All hearing-impaired groups reported significantly increased effort and fatigue compared to the control group. The median fatigue score for the control group was 14 and around 22 for the three hearing-impaired groups. The median effort score for the control group was 20 and around 70 for the three hearing-impaired groups. There was no significant difference in mean effort or fatigue between the three groups of hearing-impaired adults. There was a weak positive correlation between fatigue and effort scores (r = 0.40, p < 0.05). The proportion of participants with extreme fatigue (scores above the 95th percentile of the control group) was 22, 10, and 22%, for the HA, CI, and SSD groups, respectively. The proportion of those with extreme effort was 46, 54, and 52%, for the HA, CI, and SSD groups, respectively. Results of factor analysis using the individual questions from both questionnaires indicated that the questions loaded into two factors: a "fatigue" factor for all of the FAS questions and an "effort" factor for all of the EAS questions.Conclusion: Hearing-impaired individuals report high levels of listening effort and fatigue in everyday life. The similarity in listening-related effort and fatigue between the different hearing-impaired groups suggests that these aspects of listening experience are not predicted by the severity of hearing impairment. Factor analysis suggests that the FAS and the EAS assess two distinct dimensions. The low correlation between FAS and EAS means that fatigue cannot be reliably predicted from self-reported effort in individual listeners.