Development of measures to assess listening-related effort and fatigue in daily life among hearing aid users:protocol for a quantitative field trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Individuals with hearing loss and hearing aid users report higher levels of listening effort and fatigue in daily life compared with those with normal hearing. However, there is a lack of objective measures to evaluate these experiences in real-world settings. Recent studies have found that higher sound pressure levels (SPL) and lower signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) are linked to increased heart rate and decreased heart rate variability, reflecting the greater effort required to process auditory information. This study aims to establish physiological and acoustic predictors of self-reported listening effort and fatigue in daily life. Additionally, the moderating effects of cognitive abilities, personality traits, stress, fatigue, suprathreshold abilities, noise annoyance, lifestyle and health on the development of listening effort and fatigue will be investigated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 4-week field trial will be conducted, in which physiological responses will be continuously recorded using Empatica Embrace Plus wristbands. Ambient acoustics will be captured every 20 s via the participants' (n=60) personal hearing aids, and the participants will provide self-reported momentary assessments through a mobile app throughout the day. Questionnaires will be used to assess personality traits, fatigue, stress and noise annoyance, and gather relevant background information. Cognitive and suprathreshold abilities will also be evaluated. Associations between physiological responses, ambient acoustics and momentary assessments, as well as the potential influence of participant characteristics, will be analysed using multilevel regression models and time-series analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The study has been exempted from ethical application by the Science Ethics Committee for the Capital Region of Denmark (journal no. F-23028367). Results will be presented at conferences and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".