Dataset Information

Effects of mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss and signal amplification on vocal emotion recognition in middle-aged-older individuals.

ABSTRACT: Previous research has shown deficits in vocal emotion recognition in sub-populations of individuals with hearing loss, making this a high priority research topic. However, previous research has only examined vocal emotion recognition using verbal material, in which emotions are expressed through emotional prosody. There is evidence that older individuals with hearing loss suffer from deficits in general prosody recognition, not specific to emotional prosody. No study has examined the recognition of non-verbal vocalization, which constitutes another important source for the vocal communication of emotions. It might be the case that individuals with hearing loss have specific difficulties in recognizing emotions expressed through prosody in speech, but not non-verbal vocalizations. We aim to examine whether vocal emotion recognition difficulties in middle- aged-to older individuals with sensorineural mild-moderate hearing loss are better explained by deficits in vocal emotion recognition specifically, or deficits in prosody recognition generally by including both sentences and non-verbal expressions. Furthermore a, some of the studies which have concluded that individuals with mild-moderate hearing loss have deficits in vocal emotion recognition ability have also found that the use of hearing aids does not improve recognition accuracy in this group. We aim to examine the effects of linear amplification and audibility on the recognition of different emotions expressed both verbally and non-verbally. Besides examining accuracy for different emotions we will also look at patterns of confusion (which specific emotions are mistaken for other specific emotion and at which rates) during both amplified and non-amplified listening, and we will analyze all material acoustically and relate the acoustic content to performance. Together these analyses will provide clues to effects of amplification on the perception of different emotions. For these purposes, a total of 70 middle-aged-older individuals, half with mild-moderate hearing loss and half with normal hearing will perform a computerized forced-choice vocal emotion recognition task with and without amplification.

SUBMITTER: Ekberg M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8740977 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEmotional prosody is known to play an important role in social communication. Research has shown that children with cochlear implants (CCIs) may face challenges in their ability to express prosody, as their expressions may have less distinct acoustic contrasts and therefore may be judged less accurately. The prosody of children with milder degrees of hearing loss, wearing hearing aids, has sparsely been investigated. More understanding of the prosodic expression by children with hearing loss, hearing aid users in particular, could create more awareness among healthcare professionals and parents on limitations in social communication, which awareness may lead to more targeted rehabilitation. This study aimed to compare the prosodic expression potential of children wearing hearing aids (CHA) with that of CCIs and children with normal hearing (CNH).DesignIn this prospective experimental study, utterances of pediatric hearing aid users, cochlear implant users, and CNH containing emotional expressions (happy, sad, and angry) were recorded during a reading task. Of the utterances, three acoustic properties were calculated: fundamental frequency (F0), variance in fundamental frequency (SD of F0), and intensity. Acoustic properties of the utterances were compared within subjects and between groups.ResultsA total of 75 children were included (CHA: 26, CCI: 23, and CNH: 26). Participants were between 7 and 13 years of age. The 15 CCI with congenital hearing loss had received the cochlear implant at median age of 8 months. The acoustic patterns of emotions uttered by CHA were similar to those of CCI and CNH. Only in CCI, we found no difference in F0 variation between happiness and anger, although an intensity difference was present. In addition, CCI and CHA produced poorer happy-sad contrasts than did CNH.ConclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that on a fundamental, acoustic level, both CHA and CCI have a prosodic expression potential that is almost on par with normal hearing peers. However, there were some minor limitations observed in the prosodic expression of these children, it is important to determine whether these differences are perceptible to listeners and could affect social communication. This study sets the groundwork for more research that will help us fully understand the implications of these findings and how they may affect the communication abilities of these children. With a clearer understanding of these factors, we can develop effective ways to help improve their communication skills.

Project description:BackgroundThe main clinical intervention for mild to moderate hearing loss is the provision of hearing aids. These are routinely offered and fitted to those who seek help for hearing difficulties. By amplifying and improving access to sounds, and speech sounds in particular, the aim of hearing aid use is to reduce the negative consequences of hearing loss and improve participation in everyday life.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects of hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults.Search methodsThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; the Cochrane Register of Studies Online; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 March 2017.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hearing aids compared to a passive or active control in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes in this review were hearing-specific health-related quality of life and the adverse effect pain. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, listening ability and the adverse effect noise-induced hearing loss. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.Main resultsWe included five RCTs involving 825 participants. The studies were carried out in the USA and Europe, and were published between 1987 and 2017. Risk of bias across the studies varied. Most had low risk for selection, reporting and attrition bias, and a high risk for performance and detection bias because blinding was inadequate or absent.All participants had mild to moderate hearing loss. The average age across all five studies was between 69 and 83 years. The duration of the studies ranged between six weeks and six months.There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on hearing-specific health-related quality of life associated with participation in daily life as measured using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE, scale range 1 to 100) compared to the unaided/placebo condition (mean difference (MD) -26.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -42.16 to -10.77; 722 participants; three studies) (moderate-quality evidence).There was a small beneficial effect of hearing aids on general health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.21; 568 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on listening ability (SMD -1.88, 95% CI -3.24 to -0.52; 534 participants; two studies) (moderate-quality evidence).Adverse effects were measured in only one study (48 participants) and none were reported (very low-quality evidence).Authors' conclusionsThe available evidence concurs that hearing aids are effective at improving hearing-specific health-related quality of life, general health-related quality of life and listening ability in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. The evidence is compatible with the widespread provision of hearing aids as the first-line clinical management in those who seek help for hearing difficulties. Greater consistency is needed in the choice of outcome measures used to assess benefits from hearing aids. Further placebo-controlled studies would increase our confidence in the estimates of these effects and ascertain whether they vary according to age, gender, degree of hearing loss and type of hearing aid.

Project description:Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate listening self-efficacy ratings between aided and unaided conditions in different communication environments and to determine what patient- and device-centered variables were associated with individual differences. Method An observational, cross-sectional study design was used to evaluate 165 older adults with mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss who wore hearing aids at least 8 hr per week. Listening self-efficacy for both unaided and aided listening was measured using the Listening Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (LSEQ; Smith, Pichora-Fuller, Watts, & La More, 2011), consisting of a global score and subscales of Dialogue in Quiet, Directed Listening, and Complex Listening. Metrics to explain variability in the degree of improvement in LSEQ ratings with aided listening included patient-centered variables of age, pure-tone average, and personality and device-centered variables of hearing aid use, speech intelligibility index, directionality, and noise reduction. The NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985) was used to measure 5 personality traits (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness). Associations were evaluated between LSEQ ratings and patient- and device-centered variables using a linear mixed-model analysis. Results Statistically significant improvements in LSEQ ratings were found for aided conditions (relative to unaided conditions), easier listening environments, lower pure-tone averages, and lower levels of neuroticism. Furthermore, the improvement in listening self-efficacy with hearing aids did not depend on the listening environment but did alter with severity of hearing loss, length of hearing aid use, and levels of conscientiousness. Conclusions Results of this study suggest that wearing hearing aids is associated with improved listening self-efficacy in a variety of communication environments. Aural rehabilitation and counseling may focus on improving listening self-efficacy to address the challenges of consistent hearing aid use and reduced quality of life related to hearing loss.

Dataset Information

Effects of mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss and signal amplification on vocal emotion recognition in middle-aged-older individuals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets