Entropy as a Measure of Auditory Environment Diversity: An Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) Approach.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the validity and usefulness of entropy computed using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data as a measure of auditory environment diversity. DESIGN: We conducted two secondary analyses on existing EMA datasets. The first determined the construct validity of auditory environment entropy by examining the effect of COVID-19 on entropy. To demonstrate entropy's usefulness, the second examined if entropy could predict the benefit of hearing aid (HA) noise reduction features. RESULTS: Consistent with the known effect of COVID-19 on social lifestyle, COVID-19 significantly reduced auditory environment diversity, supporting entropy's construct validity. HA users with higher entropy reported poorer outcomes and perceived more benefit from HA features, supporting the feasibility of using entropy to predict communication performance and feature benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Entropy derived from EMA data is a valid and useful auditory environment diversity measure. This measure could allow researchers to better understand the communication needs of people with hearing loss.

Statistical Considerations for Analyzing Ecological Momentary Assessment Data.

PURPOSE: The analysis of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) data can be difficult to conceptualize due to the complexity of how the data are collected. The goal of this tutorial is to provide an overview of statistical considerations for analyzing observational data arising from EMA studies. METHOD: EMA data are collected in a variety of ways, complicating the statistical analysis. We focus on fundamental statistical characteristics of the data and general purpose statistical approaches to analyzing EMA data. We implement those statistical approaches using a recent study involving EMA. RESULTS: The linear or generalized linear mixed-model statistical approach can adequately capture the challenges resulting from EMA collected data if properly set up. Additionally, while sample size depends on both the number of participants and the number of survey responses per participant, having more participants is more important than the number of responses per participant. CONCLUSION: Using modern statistical methods when analyzing EMA data and adequately considering all of the statistical assumptions being used can lead to interesting and important findings when using EMA. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17155961.

The Influence of Forced Social Isolation on the Auditory Ecology and Psychosocial Functions of Listeners With Cochlear Implants During COVID-19 Mitigation Efforts.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of social distancing on communication and psychosocial variables among individuals with hearing impairment during COVID-19 pandemic. It was our concern that patients who already found themselves socially isolated (Wie et al. 2010) as a result of their hearing loss would be perhaps more susceptible to changes in their communication habits resulting in further social isolation, anxiety, and depression. We wanted to better understand how forced social isolation (as part of COVID-19 mitigation) effected a group of individuals with hearing impairment from an auditory ecology and psychosocial perspective. We hypothesized that the listening environments would be different as a result of social isolation when comparing subject's responses regarding activities and participation before COVID-19 and during the COVID-19 pandemic. This change would lead to an increase in experienced and perceived social isolation, anxiety, and depression. DESIGN: A total of 48 adults with at least 12 months of cochlear implant (CI) experience reported their listening contexts and experiences pre-COVID and during-COVID using Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA; methodology collecting a respondent's self-reports in their natural environments) through a smartphone-based app, and six paper and pencil questionnaires. The Smartphone app and paper-pencil questionnaires address topics related to their listening environment, social isolation, depression, anxiety, lifestyle and demand, loneliness, and satisfaction with amplification. Data from these two-time points were compared to better understand the effects of social distancing on the CI recipients' communication abilities. RESULTS: EMA demonstrated that during-COVID CI recipients were more likely to stay home or be outdoors. CI recipients reported that they were less likely to stay indoors outside of their home relative to the pre-COVID condition. Social distancing also had a significant effect on the overall signal-to-noise ratio of the environments indicating that the listening environments had better signal-to-noise ratios. CI recipients also reported better speech understanding, less listening effort, less activity limitation due to hearing loss, less social isolation due to hearing loss, and less anxiety due to hearing loss. Retrospective questionnaires indicated that social distancing had a significant effect on the social network size, participant's personal image of themselves, and overall loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, EMA provided us with a glimpse of the effect that forced social isolation has had on the listening environments and psychosocial perspectives of a select number of CI listeners. CI participants in this study reported that they were spending more time at home in a quieter environments during-COVID. Contrary to our hypothesis, CI recipients overall felt less socially isolated and reported less anxiety resulting from their hearing difficulties during-COVID in comparison to pre-COVID. This, perhaps, implies that having a more controlled environment with fewer speakers provided a more relaxing listening experience.