Oticon More New Evidence - Reducing Sustained Listening Effort
Oticon More New Evidence - Reducing Sustained Listening Effort
Oticon More New Evidence - Reducing Sustained Listening Effort
2022
Oticon More™ new evidence
— Reducing sustained
listening effort
ABSTRACT
E D I TO R S O F I SS U E
Eye-tracker
Figure 1. Test setup with a total of six loudspeakers, which is identical to the setup used in the Oticon More EEG study
(Santurette et al., 2020). Pupillometry was done by placing an eye-tracker in front of the participants to measure sustained
listening effort. Two frontal loudspeakers (blue and red) contained a male and a female talker reading audio clips
simultanouely. Background noise, which is a 16-talker babble, came from the remaining four loudspeakers.
PAGE 3 WHITEPAPER – 2022 – PUPILLOMETRY EVIDENCE ON OTICON MORE
Real-life listening
Objective listening effort is typically measured using Real-life conversations
pupillometry, which involves continuously recording a
listener’s pupil dilation while performing a listening task require sustained
(Ohlenforst et al., 2017; 2018; Wendt et al., 2017). When
performing a demanding task — such as listening to
attention
speech in noise — an increase in effort is reflected by
the change in the pupil size (Beaty, 1982). The larger window as compared to the shorter 4 to 5-second time
the degree of pupil dilation, the more the listening effort window in the previous studies, this gives us a measure
is thought to be needed for the task. of listening effort that is more representative of the
real-life situations.
In studies investigating listening effort, short sentences
are typically used as speech material in the listening The aim of this study is to measure and compare
task. The participants are usually asked to listen to and sustained listening effort with and without MSI enabled.
repeat aloud sentences presented in noise. Peak pupil In our previous Oticon More EEG study, both EEG and
dilation during the presentation of the sentence-in- pupillometry data were collected at the same time while
noise stimuli (4 to 5 seconds long) is commonly used as the participants were performing a selective listening
a measure of listening effort. However, this may not task. The EEG data were already reported in the Oticon
fully represent real-life listening situations because we whitepaper, Santurette et al. (2020). This whitepaper
often listen to running or continuous speech rather than reports only the pupillometry data. Both sets of data
isolated sentences in everyday conversations. Following were also reported in a peer-reviewed journal (see
a conversation requires paying attention to the talker Andersen et al., 2021).
over a sustained period, which is known as sustained
attention, and staying engaged. To understand the gist Methods
of the conversation, we will also need to react, reflect Seventeen experienced hearing-aid users (mean age
and respond. By assessing the change in pupil dilation 67 years) with a symmetrical, sensorineural hearing
while listening to running speech using a longer time loss ranging from a mild to moderate were included in
Larger pupil
Higher effort
-0.05
MoreSound
Intelligence OFF
-0.1 MoreSound
Pupil size Intelligence ON
change (mm)
Reduced
-0.15 listening effort
Figure 2. Change in pupil size with MSI on versus MSI off. The magenta line with MSI on indicates less sustained listening
effort over 30 seconds.
PAGE 4 WHITEPAPER – 2022 – PUPILLOMETRY EVIDENCE ON OTICON MORE
0,00
0 Figure 3 Average pupil size changes
Higher (accumulated over 30 seconds) with
effort MSI on versus MSI off
-0,02
-0.1
-0,04
Accumulated
change in
pupil size
(mm) -0,06
-0.15
-0,08
Lower -30%
effort
-0.2
-0,10
OFF ON
MoreSound Intelligence
PAGE 5 WHITEPAPER – 2022 – PUPILLOMETRY EVIDENCE ON OTICON MORE
Conclusions
We assessed pupil size as an established measure of Even though the brain is
sustained listening effort (Fiedler et al., 2021). Smaller
pupil dilation (an indication of less listening effort) while getting more sound with
listening to a running speech for a longer duration is
observed with MSI on than MSI off. This suggests better
Oticon More, less effort
sustained attention and engagement when listening is required to listen to
with MSI in Oticon More.
speech in noise, thanks
Previously, we have shown that Oticon More via the use
of the intelligence of a Deep Neural Network is able to
to the groundbreaking
provide the brain with a clearer sound and a better MSI feature.
access to the full sound scene. Approximately 60% more
clearer sound is given to the brain with MSI in Oticon More
(Santurette et al., 2020). Together with the findings of
this clinical study, MSI dramatically reduced sustained
listening effort at the same time as it gives the brain
access to more sound. These findings confirm the new
approach of the BrainHearing technology in Oticon More.
By providing access to the full sound scene, the brain
can better orient, focus and recognize. Oticon More
helps the brain to work in the optimal way, so it
consequently requires less effort to hear, understand,
and participate socially.
Clinical interpretation
We have shown that with MSI, less effort is required to
listen in noise. Less effort during listening over a longer
period means that 1) the brain is using less cognitive
resources to understand speech in challenging
situations such as a restaurant, and 2) the listeners
with hearing loss can more easily react, respond, and
engage in conversations. Even though the brain is
getting more sound with Oticon More, less effort is
required to listen to speech in noise, thanks to the
groundbreaking MSI feature.
PAGE 6 WHITEPAPER – 2022 – PUPILLOMETRY EVIDENCE ON OTICON MORE
References
1. Andersen, A.H., Santurette, S., Pedersen, M.S., Alickovic, E., Fiedler, L., Jensen J, Behrens, T. (2021). Creating Clarity
in Noisy Environments by Using Deep Learning in Hearing Aids. Seminars in of Hearing 42,260-281.
2. Beatty, J. (1982). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources.
Psychological Bulletin, 91, 276–292.
3. Crews, J.E., Campbell, V.A. (2004). Vision impairment and hearing loss among community-dwelling older Americans:
implication for health and functioning. American journal of Public Health, 94, 823-829.
4. Dai, L., Best, V., Shinn-Cunningham, B.G. (2018). Sensorineural hearing loss degraded behavioral and physiological
measures of human spatial selective auditory attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A.
115, E3286-E3295.
5. Fiedler, L., Ala, T. S., Graversen, C., Alickovic, E., Lunner, T., & Wendt, D. (2021). Hearing Aid Noise Reduction Lowers
the Sustained Listening Effort During Continuous Speech in Noise—A Combined Pupillometry and EEG Study. Ear and
hearing, 42(6), 1590-1601.
6. Griffiths, T.D., Lad, M., Kumar, S., Holmes, E., McMurray, B., Maguire, E.A., Billig, A.J., Sedley, W. (2020). How can
hearing loss cause dementia. Neuron. 108, 401-412.
7. Herrmann, B., & Johnsrude, I. S. (2020). A model of listening engagement (MoLE). Hearing research, 397, 108016.
8. Hicks, C., & Tharpe, A. 2002. Listening effort and fatigue in school-age children with and without hearing loss.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 573 - 584.
9. Meyer, C., Grenness, C., Scarinci, N., & Hickson, L. (2016). What is the international classification of functioning,
disability and health and why is it relevant to audiology? In Seminars in Hearing (Vol. 37, No. 03, pp. 163-186).
Thieme Medical Publishers.
10. Lin, F.R., Metter, E.J., O’Brien, R.J., Resnick, S.M., Zonderman, AB., Ferrucci, L. (2011a). Hearing loss and incidental
dementia. Archives of Neurology 68, 214-220.
11. Lin, F.R., Ferrucci, L., Metter, E.J., An, Y., Zonderman, A.B., Resnick, S.M. (2011b). Hearing loss and cognition in the
Baltimore Longitudinal study of aging. Neuropsychology, 25, 763-770.
12. Lin, F.R., Yaffe, K., Xia, J., Xue, Q.L., Harris, T.B., et al. (2013). Hearing loss and cognitive decline in older adults. JAMA
Internal Medicine, 173, 293-299.
13. Livingston, G., Huntley, J., Sommerlad, A., Ames, D., Ballard, C., et al. (2020). Dementia prevention, intervention,
and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission. Lancet, 2020, 396, 413-446.
14. Loughrey, D.G., Kelly, M.E., Kelley, G.A., Brennan, S., Lawlor, B.A. (2018). Association of Age-related Hearing Loss
with Cognitive Function, Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia: A systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA
Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 144, 115-126.
15. McCoy, S., Tun, P., Cox, L., Colangelo, M., Stewart, R., & Wingfield, A. (2005). Hearing loss and perceptual effort:
Downstream effects on older adults’ memory for speech. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section
A, 58, 22-33.
16. Nachtegaal, J., Kuik, D.J., Anema, J.R., Goverts, S.T., Festen, J.M., & Kramer, S.E. (2009). Hearing status, need for
recovery after work, and psychosocial work characteristics: Results from an internet-based national survey on
hearing. International Journal of Audiology, 48, 684-691.
PAGE 7 WHITEPAPER – 2022 – PUPILLOMETRY EVIDENCE ON OTICON MORE
17. Ohlenforst, B., Wendt, D., Kramer, S. E., Naylor, G., Zekveld, A. A., & Lunner, T. (2018). Impact of SNR, masker type and
noise reduction processing on sentence recognition performance and listening effort as indicated by the pupil
dilation response. Hearing research, 365, 90–99.
18. Ohlenforst, B., Zekveld, A. A., Jansma, E. P., Wang, Y., Naylor, G., Lorens, A., et al. (2017). Effects of Hearing
Impairment and Hearing Aid Amplification on Listening Effort: A Systematic Review. Ear and hearing, 38, 267–281.
19. Pass, F.G.W.C., van Gog, T., Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: new conceptualizations, specifications, and
integrated research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review. 22, 115-121.
20. Pichora-Fuller, M. K., Alain, C., & Schneider, B. A. (2017). Older adults at the cocktail party. In The auditory system at
the cocktail party (pp. 227-259). Springer, Cham.
21. Rabbitt, P. (1991). Mild hearing loss can cause apparent memory failures which increase with age and reduce with
IQ. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 111, 167-176.
22. Santurette S, Ng, E.H., Juul Jensen, J., Kai Loong, B.M. (2020). Oticon More™ Clinical Evidence. A glimpse into new
Brainhearing™ Benefits.
23. Shinn-Cunningham, B.G., Best, V. (2008). Selective attention in normal and hearing impaired. Trends Amplification,
12, 283-299.
24. Wendt, D., Hietkamp, R. K., & Lunner, T. (2017). Impact of Noise and Noise Reduction on Processing Effort:
A Pupillometry Study. Ear and hearing, 38, 690–700.
21-253668 15555-10534/12.21