Towards an extended classification of noise-distortion preferences by modeling longitudinal dynamics of listening choices

Study overview

The data was collected in the context of an EMA study distributed over three consecutive weeks, as described in Angonese et al. (2024). The study was conducted in the field using the personal smartphones of the participants. During the first week, participants were asked to complete different questionnaires on their smartphone browser once a day. This baseline assessment aimed at collecting information on several audiological and psychological variables associated with hearing and hearing help-seeking (Knoetze et al., 2023). In the present study, we considered a subset of the baseline questionnaires, namely sound preferences and hearing habits, noise sensitivity and personality. For further measures included, please refer to Angonese et al. (2024). During the second and third week, participants completed a longitudinal assessment of listening preferences (noise-distortion trade-off task) and hearing performance in their everyday life. A total of 20 measurement time points were distributed along 10 weekdays (morning and evening) and lasted approximately 15 minutes each. The study was conducted using formr, an open-source web-based application programming interface for the R language that creates automated studies (Arslan et al., 2019). Participants were prompted to conduct the experimental tasks via email and SMS and were remunerated with 10 Euros per hour. Written informed consent was collected prior to enrolment. The study plan and data management have been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (08.09.2021, EK/2020/020-01).

Participants

The study included N = 185 participants, 106 females and 79 males (0 diverse), aged between 47 and 82 years, with M_age = 63.1 and SD_age = 6.5. To target potential future users of HAs and hearing mHealth applications, we recruited older adults with self-reported hearing difficulties but without HAs. As part of the inclusion criteria, all participants were German native speakers and could use a smartphone. Less than half of the participants (48.1%) had previously consulted a doctor about their hearing problems, which had been present for an average of 5.2 years. One third of the sample reported the presence of tinnitus (35.1%).

Mobile assessment of listening preferences

We designed a mobile task in formr to assess listening preferences along the trade-off between noise annoyance and signal distortion, simulating the general effect of a NR algorithm. The stimuli and the task were chosen for comparability with previous studies (Gößwein et al., 2022; Kubiak et al., 2022). The task is based on sliders with discrete buttons, along which the SNR (and artificially introduced distortions based on peak clipping) between a speech and a noise signal can be varied. By comparing the results of different sliders, the trade-off between noise and distortion preferences will be assessed as explained in the following sections. After one practice trial, the task was presented three consecutive times at baseline to obtain a multiple indicator trait measure. The task was presented an additional 20 times during the longitudinal phase of the study.

Stimuli

The stimuli consisted of speech signals in background noise, with or without distortions contingent on the task condition. The signals were constructed as follows.

• Speech signal. The target speech material consisted of sentences from the German Matrix Sentence Test (Oldenburger Satztest – OLSA, Kollmeier et al., 2015) with female, synthetic speech (Nuesse et al., 2019). The sentences were pseudo-randomised to differ across stimuli. The level of the speech signal was varied during the experiment, indicated in the following by the SNR relative to the noise signal.

• Noise signal. The noise consisted of multi-talker babble noise (Kubiak et al., 2022), and its level was kept fixed across stimuli. This noise is a mix of 10 adult voices (male and female) superimposed to the point of unintelligibility, with a total duration of 60 seconds. For each stimulus, a different random noise snippet corresponding to the respective duration of the sentence was extracted from the noise file.

• Clipping. Signal distortions were introduced by applying hard peak clipping to the speech signal similar to Kubiak et al., 2022. The clipping rate was defined as the number of clipped speech samples divided by the total number of speech samples. The Perceptual Similarity Measure (PSM) of the PEMO-Q model (Huber & Kollmeier, 2006) was used to achieve perceptually equidistant distortions over stimuli, such that the clipping can be varied approximately linearly with the SNR (along the slider dimension, see below). The PSM measure predicts the difference in perceived audio quality between the reference signal (the unclipped mixed signal, with noise and speech) and the test signal (the clipped mixed signal, with noise and clipped speech). To achieve a linear perception of distortions with increasing SNR (in the respective SNR range for each slider), the target quality (PSM) was estimated by a linear fit to PSM values obtained for linear clipping values (in the interval [0 to 80] %) employed as starting point. After that, the optimal clipping values (supplementary material 1) were estimated by interpolation to the respective target PSM, based on precalculated PSM maps for all combinations of SNR and clipping values. In addition to the sound quality, we modelled the perceived loudness by means of the loudness model of Moore and Glasberg (ISO 532-2). This was necessary in order to equalize the loudness of all stimuli since in general clipping increases the loudness of a signal. The loudness of the unclipped mixed signal was used as reference loudness.

Noise-distortion trade-off task

The noise-distortion trade-off task included three listening conditions, each presented in the form of a slider with nine discrete positions. A speech-in-noise stimulus of approximately two seconds (length of the respective sentence) was presented at each slider position. The three listening conditions were adapted from measures previously used in laboratory settings (Gößwein et al., 2022; Kubiak et al., 2022) and are summarized in figure 1.

1. Simple linear gain condition (slider 1). This condition identified the SNR level at which the individual reports little listening effort in the absence of signal distortions. Nine signals were presented with linear gain applied to the speech signal, namely with increasing SNR from left to right (in the interval [−7 to 23] dB SNR in steps of 3.75 dB), with varying speech level and constant noise level as adjusted to a comfortable level by subjective calibration (see below under Procedure). The range of SNR values provided a complete range of listening effort. The lower limit was chosen to avoid too high listening effort, as values below −7 dB SNR would require excessive listening effort. Individuals with normal hearing associated an SNR between −7 and 22 dB with a “moderate listening effort”, with 22 dB SNR being mostly “effortless” (Krueger et al., 2017).

2. General trade-off condition (slider 2). In this condition, better SNR comes at the expense of hard peak-clipping distortions. As in slider 1, the nine stimuli had linearly increasing SNR from left to right (in the interval [−7 to 23] dB SNR in steps of 3.75 dB). In addition, hard peak clipping of the signal was introduced as perceptually linearly increasing from left to right. Thus, increasing SNR corresponded to increasing clipping distortions. The peak clipping rate ranged from 0 to 80% of the samples clipped, in 10% steps according to the button spacing.

3. Adaptive trade-off condition (slider 3). This last condition was similar to slider 2, but here the SNR range was dependent on the participant’s SNR value selected in slider 1. The minimum value for the SNR remained −7 dB SNR (leftmost position) and it linearly increased up to 3 dB above the SNR value measured with slider 1. As an exception, if the participants selected the initial two values on slider 1 (−7 or −3.25 dB SNR) the upper-limit of slider 3 was set at 3 dB SNR. If they selected the last value on slider 1 (23 dB SNR), the upper limit of slider 3 was kept at 23 dB SNR. Clipping distortions of the signal were introduced as in slider 2 and increased perceptually linear from left to right (in the interval [0 to 80] %), thus with a different mapping of clipping values to SNR. This adaptive SNR range has been implemented in order to enforce the trade-off between noise and distortion by providing a higher amount of distortion at a SNR level that was previously judged to require little listening effort (slider 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Graphical representation of the three listening conditions, which were presented to participants in the form of sliders. Each slider consisted of nine discrete positions, each containing a speech-in-noise stimulus. Information on SNR and clipping values for each position on the slider is shown. SNR: signal-to-noise ratio.

Procedure

Participants were instructed to perform the task on their smartphone browser in a quiet environment. They were asked to use their personal headphones and to refrain from changing them throughout the study. It should be noted that we did not enquire about the type/brand of smartphone and headphones used. Three participants used the smartphone loudspeakers, as headphones were not available to them. A pilot study was conducted in June 2021 with 21 participants (10 males, 11 females, aged between 18 and 70 years old) to develop appropriate and clear task instructions. At each task presentation (before slider 1), users were asked to perform a subjective calibration by adjusting the noise stimulus to a comfortable listening level. This level was defined as the smartphone’s output volume with headphones (due to implementation limitations of formr we could not control this level via the software). Participants were instructed to keep this volume level constant during the entire task. Users were asked to move the slider button stepwise from left to right via the touchscreen until they could hear the speech with little listening effort. Figure 2 shows how the task was displayed on the smartphone’s browser (see also supplementary material 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Task design as displayed on the participants’ smartphone. First, participants were asked to complete a calibration task to adjust the volume level of their device (left). The three sliders followed, each in a separate browser page. Here, only slider 1 is shown (right). Supplementary material 2 provides an overview of the entire task (all three sliders) as displayed on the browser. The instructions have been here translated to English for consistency with the language of the paper, but were presented to the study participants in German.

Measures of listening preferences for noise vs. distortions

Two measures were derived from the noise-distortion trade-off task: The SNR difference between the response to slider 1 and 2, namely between the simple linear gain vs. the general trade-off condition (ΔSNR_g), and the SNR difference between slider 1 and 3, namely between the simple linear gain vs. adaptive trade-off condition (ΔSNR_a). Both measures aimed to assess the preferred trade-off between noise and distortions at the individual point of lowest listening effort. The goal of the psychometric analysis (RQ1) was to investigate which of the two difference measures was more consistent at the between-person level and better able to capture the targeted trade-off, that is, providing suitable combinations of SNR and clipping that enforce a decision between the two dimensions. Figure 3 provides an example of ideal preferences along each slider for a noise hater and a distortion hater. Noise haters would show a ΔSNR_g,a close to zero, meaning that they desire a similarly high SNR in slider 2/3 and slider 1, at the expense of a high level of distortions causing a degradation in speech quality. In an ideal scenario, a noise hater would choose the same SNR level on all sliders (note that we looked at the differences between slider 1 and 2 as well as slider 1 and 3). On the contrary, distortion haters would show a positive ΔSNR_g,a, indicating that they accept a lower SNR in slider 2/3 as compared to slider 1 in order to avoid distortions. This choice would ensure better speech quality, albeit at the expense of listening effort and speech intelligibility performance at lower SNR. As illustrated in figure 3, the constrained SNR range of slider 3 forces a distortion hater to select an even lower SNR compared to slider 2, given that the clipping value at the same button position is higher for slider 3. Accordingly, we anticipate that the trade-off would be more evident in ΔSNR_a measures. It is important to note that even distortion haters would prefer a high SNR if distortions were to be removed. Indeed, depending on the degree of hearing loss, a distortion hater can sacrifice some SNR to avoid distortions only at the point where speech intelligibility is still acceptable.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Graphical representation of ideal slider position choices (black squares) for a noise hater (left) and a distortion hater (right). The two graphs show the SNR values (X axis) and clipping values (Y axis) for slider 1 (simple linear gain condition), slider 2 (general trade-off condition) and slider 3 (adaptive trade-off condition). Here it can be seen how slider 3 values vary depending on the choice made in slider 1, while slider 1 and 2 are the same for all participants.

Assessment of trait-related covariates

Statistical analysis

RQ 1. Are the psychometric properties of the proposed individual listening preferences measure for noise vs. distortion applied on a smartphone acceptable?

For this analysis we used the baseline data (three consecutive repetitions of the task) with N₁ = 185 participants. The initial step was to assess the consistency of measurements for the two slider measures ΔSNR_g and ΔSNR_a, which we will refer to as indicators. This analysis aimed at testing whether the two indicators measure the same rank order of individuals and, consequently, whether they would be equally suitable for assessing the noise-distortion trade-off. We run a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by fitting a model series with the cfa() function of the lavaan package in R. Two model versions were evaluated (figure 4). A two-factor model was initially fitted, with two separate latent factors T_Δg for ΔSNR_g and T_Δa for ΔSNR_a. This model assumes the two indicators to measure at least partly different latent variables. Subsequently, a single-factor solution was evaluated by fixing the correlation between the two factors to one. This model assumes that both indicators measure the exact same latent variable T_Δ. The anova() function applied to the model results was used to compute a χ²-difference test to compare the two models with regard to their fit. The following factor model equation (see also figure 4) applies:

where Δ_ij is the measurement observation of indicator i (ΔSNR_g or ΔSNR_a) at repetition j (for a total of 3 repetitions at baseline for each indicator); α_ij indicates the intercept and ε_ij the measurement error for each observation; λ_TΔ is the loading for the latent trait factor T of the variable ΔSNR. In a second step, after identifying the best-fitting model, we evaluated the factor loadings for ΔSNR_g and ΔSNR_a to identify which of the two slider measures should be considered for subsequent analysis, due to higher consistency. Higher loadings λ_TΔ of one measure on the latent variable indicate higher consistency of the measure between person.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

CFA diagrams of the model series for the two indicators ΔSNR_g (here depicted as Δ_g) and ΔSNR_a (here depicted as Δ_a) for the three measurement occasions at baseline (N₁ = 185). (Left) Two-factor model. (Right) Single-factor model. T: latent trait; λ: factor loading; Δ: observed indicator; ε: measurement error.

RQ 2. Are listening preferences stable or do they fluctuate considerably over time (state-related variance)?

For the second research question, the longitudinal data frame (N₂ = 169 participants) was used, with up to 20 observations per participant. Temporal dynamics of individual listening preferences were investigated with a simplified version of the LST-AR model from Holtmann et al. (2023). In this modeling framework, individual short-term variability of latent processes can be modelled while taking into account temporal dependencies between consecutive observations (autoregressive effects). According to the LST theory, an observed variable Δ_t (at time point t) can be decomposed into a trait variable T_t (the attribute of a person (Steyer et al., 2015)), a residual variable S_t (the attribute of a person in a situation (Steyer et al., 2015)), and a measurement error variable ε_t. Trait and state variables together constitute a person’s true score. The trait is defined as the expectation of the person-specific distribution of Δ_t across all possible situations that might be experienced at that time point (Holtmann et al., 2023). The state residual captures the effects of the situation and of the interaction between person and situation at a specific time point. By extending the LST model to the LST-AR model, we consider carryover effects across temporally adjacent observations. The autoregressive (AR) parameters capture the effect of cumulative experiences across time, namely to which degree person-situation interaction effects at a time point t predict trait values at the following time point (Holtmann et al., 2023).

In our model, depicted in figure 5, we have only one indicator per time point (either ΔSNR_g or ΔSNR_a following RQ1). Hence, the residual variance which is not captured by the trait will include both the state-related variance (S_t) and the error term (ε_t). Further parameters introduced in the model equation are the intercept α_t, which captures the average additive trait change, and the factor loadings λ_Tt, which have been constrained here to 1 under the assumption of time invariance. Our final model equation for each observation Δ_t is:

In a first step, a single-trait LST model (without AR effects) has been implemented for the indicator of choice (based on the results of RQ1) in Mplus using the Maximum likelihood robust (MLR) estimator with 100 random sets of starting values. The trait mean together with intercepts and residual variances were estimated for each time point. We evaluated trait consistency and state specificity by estimating the amount of state-related variance. A large proportion of state-related variance would indicate that listening preferences are not stable over time. In a second step, the model has been extended to a LST-AR model to gain more insight on potential time-series dynamics. In this step, we evaluated the temporal linear dependence of an observation on the previous time point, defined as first-order AR effect.

Model fit was evaluated using the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and the χ²-test, together with Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and sample-size adjusted BIC (SABIC) for model comparison.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5.

Path diagram of the LST-AR model for one latent variable measured by one indicator (either ΔSNR_a or ΔSNR_b depending on RQ1) on the 20 measurement occasions of the longitudinal data (N₂ = 169). T: latent trait variable; Δ: observed indicator; S: latent state variable.

Response to RQ 1: Both indicators measure the same rank order and ΔSNR_a shows higher consistency

The two latent factors ΔSNR_g and ΔSNR_a showed a correlation of r = .86 in the two-factor model. The model fit of the two-factor solution did not improve over the single-factor model significantly, with (1, N = 185) = 1.1, p = .293, RMSEA = .024. Moreover, the observations for the two indicators at the same time point showed correlations of magnitude r = .40 to r = .50. We can therefore conclude that the single-factor model best fits the data, and that the two indicators ΔSNR_g and ΔSNR_a are measuring the same rank order of individuals.

To decide which of the two indicators (ΔSNR_g or ΔSNR_a) should have been considered for subsequent analysis and as best measurement indicator in a mobile app of listening preferences, we inspected the magnitude of their factor loadings in the single-factor model. As can be seen in figure 6, the loadings for ΔSNR_g were on average λ_Δg=.378 and the ΔSNR_a loadings were on average λ_Δa=.501. Higher loadings for ΔSNR_a onto the factor mean that this indicator had higher overall consistency across repeated measures. In addition, when inspecting the distributions of the single observations (see figure 7), ΔSNR_a showed the noise-distortion trade-off more clearly. Indeed, the distribution of the SNR differences showed a median shift of about 4 dB, indicating that participants were successfully “forced” to take a decision in the adaptive trade-off condition created in slider 3. Furthermore, the distribution of accepted clipping ratios was also broader for ΔSNR_a, leading to a better separation between noise haters preferring to keep their chosen SNR at the cost of high distortion, and distortion haters preferring to reduce distortions at the cost of SNR. In contrast, many observations for ΔSNR_g had a negative value, meaning that participants chose a higher SNR level in slider 2 (general trade-off) than in slider 1 (linear gain scenario). These negative values are unexpected, as they indicate that individuals do not adjust slider 2 beyond their preferred SNR position of slider 1, as this would introduce distortion that would impair listening effort. Such cases of negative ΔSNR_a might indicate that the level of distortions present in slider 2 at the preferred SNR position of slider 1 was too low to successfully enforce a noise-distortion trade-off.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6.

CFA diagram of the single-factor model for the two indicators ΔSNR_g (here depicted as Δ_g) and ΔSNR_a (here depicted as Δ_a) for the three measurement occasions at baseline (N₁ = 185). Factor loadings for each indicator are shown. T: latent trait; λ: factor loading; Δ: observed indicator; ε: measurement error.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7.

Distribution of observations for ΔSNRg (top) and ΔSNRa (bottom). The X axis shows the ΔSNR in dB measured as the difference between slider 1 - slider 2 and between slider 1 - slider 3. The Y axis shows the corresponding clipping ratio. For each of the N₁ = 185 participants the three baseline measures are shown. The marginal density plots show the overall distributions of the individual ΔSNR measures and clipping. SNR: signal-to-noise ratio.

Response to RQ 2. There is a considerable amount of state-related variance but no temporal dependencies between consecutive observations

First, we implemented the single-trait LST model for ΔSNR_a (as chosen in RQ1) to investigate the overall state-related variance. The complete Mplus output can be consulted in our Zenodo repository (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13960717). Table 1 provides an overview of model fit indices, with good model fit usually indicated by RMSEA < .07; CFI > 0.95; TLI > .95; SRMR < .08 and a low χ² relative to the degrees of freedom with p > .05 (Hooper et al., 2008). Among all indices, the RMSEA indicated good fit, while the others did not meet the cut-off criteria. The average state-related variance amounted to .787 for the 20 longitudinal measures taken into account (N₂ = 169 participants). This indicates that almost 79% of the variance observed in the measured listening preferences is attributable to situational (or state) fluctuations, while about 21% of the variance observed is due to stable trait-like preferences. Variance estimates for the single time points varied between .607 (p = < .001) and .895 (p = <.001) and can be consulted in the Mplus output.

Secondly, we extended the LST model for ΔSNR_a to a LST-AR model to explore potential time-series dynamics of the observed state-related variance. First-order AR effects indicate the temporal dependency of each observation on the previous one. When taking AR effects into account, the model fit improved. AIC, BIC, SABIC were smaller than in the LST model and the other fit indices were closer to the cut-off values (see table 1). The average state-related variance amounted to .778 (see the Mplus output for the single time points estimates). Overall, four out of 19 AR effects were significant: AR effect of time point 2 on 3 (.222, p = .004), time point 6 on 7 (.120, p = .046), time point 8 on 9 (.243, p = < .001), and time point 18 on 19 (.349, p = < .001). These four first-order AR effects indicate an effect of the evening measurement on the following morning’s observation. However, these effects had very low magnitude and did not show a consistent pattern, thus no conclusions on systematic linear temporal dependency could be derived. Consequently, we did not estimate second-order AR effects, which refer to the dependence of an observation to the previous-to-last time point (in our case the dependence of a morning measurement on the previous morning and of an evening measurement on the previous evening). We refer to the Mplus output for all first-order AR effects estimates (see Zenodo repository).

Response to RQ 3.1 Data-driven classification suggests the identification of three classes based on the trait means

We extended the analysis to a mixture LST model for ΔSNR_a. AR effects were not taken into account for classification since only weak effects had been observed (see above). First, we investigated the distribution of latent subgroups or classes c that could be separated based only on their trait means T. For this, the intercepts α_t were fixed to equality across time and the state-related variance S_t was constrained to equality across classes. Mean differences in latent trait levels were freely estimated and allowed to vary across latent classes. The results of the two-, three-, and four-class solutions can be found in table 2, together with model fit and entropy measures. The two-class solution showed the highest entropy and identified a small class comprising six individuals with trait mean close to zero, which aligns with our definition of noise haters. The remaining participants had been grouped into a second majority class, which may encompass distortion haters of varying degrees. The three-class solution further differentiated this majority class, thereby enhancing the interpretability of the classification output. In addition to the six noise haters (T_c1 = 0.643), the three-class solution identified a small class with the highest trait mean (T_c3 = 6.055), which may encompass a group of extreme distortion haters. The majority class exhibited here an intermediate mean trait (T_c2 = 4.103). The selection of the optimal solution relies on balancing information provided by the metrics (model fit and entropy) and the interpretability of the latent classes. The three-class solution was selected as the optimal solution, as it provided the highest model fit (as indicated by the smallest AIC and SABIC), while maintaining a good level of entropy. It should be noted that model fit indices and entropy are on different scales, which means that even small differences in model fit can motivate the choice of a model over a competing one. Furthermore, discerning three distinct classes (here noise haters, intermediate, and distortion haters) is epistemologically equivalent to identifying two classes where one exhibits varying degrees of the trait. The three-class solution is also consistent with previous findings, wherein laboratory studies similarly identified a comparable distribution of three classes. Figure 8 shows the class-specific distribution of individual ΔSNR_a averaged across all longitudinal measures, and illustrates the model-derived classification of individuals into the three distinct classes. It should be noted that the model-derived class-specific trait means do not equal the class-specific arithmetic means of the observed ΔSNR_a measures. The latent trait is an estimated variable reflecting an attribute of a person that is not directly measured but inferred from the observed data (Steyer et al., 2015).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 8.

Class-specific distributions of individual mean ΔSNR_a averaged across all longitudinal measures for the 3-class solution based on the trait mean (N₂ = 169). The three classes are color- and shape-coded. The single measures are jittered along the Y axis for better visualization. The marginal density plot shows the class-specific distributions of the individual mean ΔSNR_a. SNR: signal-to-noise ratio.

Response to RQ 3.2 Classification improves when accounting for state-related variance

We extended the previous classification (see response to RQ 3.1) to account for the longitudinal dynamics of listening preferences. Due to the small number of individuals classified in the noise hater class (n_c1 = 6) and in the distortion hater class (n_c3 = 14), the analysis was conducted only on the majority class (n_c2 = 149). A mixture LST model was implemented to identify latent subgroups c of participants that differed in their state-trait variability. Intercepts α_t, trait mean T and state-related variances S_t were freely estimated and allowed to vary across latent classes. Occasion-specific state-related variances were averaged across classes to a single value S per class. The results of the two-, three-, and four-class solutions can be found in table 3. The four-class solution reached only a local solution, as the number of parameters was larger than the sample size. Model fit indices and entropy measures favored the three-class solution. This solution identified a majority class with low state-related variance and a comparatively lower trait mean (T_c1 = 3.928, S_c1 = 0.880). The second class had the highest trait mean and intermediate state-related variance (T_c2 = 4.966, S_c2 = 0.892). The third class had an intermediate mean and the highest variance (T_c3 = 4.089, S_c3= 0.943). When accounting for state-related variance, individuals who exhibited similar trait levels could be differentiated based on the degree of variability observed in their listening preferences. Figure 9 shows the class-specific distribution of individual ΔSNR_a mean and standard deviation across all longitudinal observations (for N_c2 = 149 participants). As with the considerations made for figure 8, it should be noted that the standard deviation of the observed data does not directly correspond to the model-derived state-related variance (which is a standardized latent variable ranging from 0 to 1). In figure 9, standard deviations were employed for the purpose of visualizing the degree of variability observed in the data for each model-derived class.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 9.

Class-specific distributions of individual mean ΔSNR_a (X axis) and standard deviation (Y axis) across all longitudinal measures for the 2-class solution based on LST model parameters (N_c2 = 149). Three latent subgroups have been here separated from the majority class identified in the first classification step (RQ 3.1). The classes are color-coded. The marginal density plots show the class-specific distributions of the individual mean ΔSNR_a and of the individual standard deviations. SNR: signal-to-noise ratio; sd: standard deviation.

Response to RQ 3.3 The class with largest state-related variance shows significantly higher neuroticism trait level

We investigated potential covariates for the latent classes identified from the data-driven, model-based classifications (RQ 3.1 and RQ 3.2). An overview of all one-way ANOVAs results is provided in the supplementary material 3. The latent classes identified in response to RQ 3.1 (classification based on trait means) did not significantly differ with respect to hearing performance, sound preference and hearing habits, noise sensitivity and personality. When considering the latent classes identified in response to RQ 3.2 (classification based on trait and state-variance on N_c2 = 149), hearing performance and neuroticism only approached significance with p < .1. Specifically, the ANOVA results for hearing performance were F_(2,146) = 2.390, p = .095 with no significant class differences at the post-hoc pairwise comparisons (TukeyHSD test with 95% CI). Despite the subjective reports of hearing difficulties, 74.1% of all participants had on average good hearing performance (individual mean SRT < −7.1 dB SNR) at the repeated measures of the DTT. 2.7% of participants showed intermediate average performance (individual mean SRT >= −7.1 dB SNR and < −5.1 dB SNR) while the remaining 3.2% had on average poor hearing performance (individual mean SRT >= −5.1 dB SNR) (Buschermöhle et al., 2014; Smits et al., 2006). The ANOVA results for neuroticism were F_(2,146) = 3.630, p = .050 and the post-hoc pairwise comparisons (TukeyHSD test with 95% CI) revealed a significant difference between class 2 and 3 (p = .043). As can be seen in figure 10, class 3, which had shown the highest state-related variance (S_c3= .943), had significantly higher neuroticism values as compared to class 2, which had shown comparatively lower state variance (S_c3= .892).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 10:

Class-specific distributions of individual SRT mean values (averaged across all longitudinal measures) and individual neuroticism trait levels for the classification based on the LST model parameters for N_c2 = 149 (RQ 3.2). The violin plots depict the distribution of all observations within each class, and the box plots represent the median, interquartile range, and potential outliers. SRT: Speech Recognition Threshold, SNR: signal-to-noise ratio.

Outlook and limitations

In a subsequent stage of this study, we plan to investigate the determinants of the observed large state-related variance of listening preferences along the noise-distortion trade-off. Other subjective states such as momentary mood or stress might have an influence on the intra-individual variability of listening preferences. We plan to examine cross-lagged effects between state variance in listening preferences and variability in daily mood and hearing performance. Listening preferences may vary depending on the nature of the task and future studies might consider more naturalistic target speech signals. It is possible that listeners who accept distortions applied to a short sentence (as in the present study) may not exhibit similar listening preferences when the distortion is applied to a longer signal, such as an audiobook excerpt or a conversation between different speakers (Walravens et al., 2020). To enhance the ecological validity of the signals, it would be beneficial to consider different types of distortions that better simulate the signal distortion typically created by NR algorithms, such as “musical” noise distortion (Gößwein et al., 2023). Future studies should also assess listening preferences in different populations: children, younger and older adults with different types and degrees of hearing loss, as well as HAs users. Another limitation of the present mobile study is the lack of control over the surrounding environment and measurement conditions. To increase control over the procedures, it would be advisable to install accompanying apps that record the ambient noise and check for the usage of headphones, which should ideally be calibrated. Future feasibility studies are needed to improve the user-interface and the implementation of the noise-distortion preference task in a mobile app. The use of a continuous slider (Gößwein et al., 2022) has the potential to enhance precision in the measurements, with the requisite degree of precision warranting further investigation.