Christoph Völker1,2, Thomas Bisitz3, Rainer Huber3, Birger Kollmeier1,2, Stephan M A Ernst1,2. 1. a Abteilung Medizinische Physik , Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg , Oldenburg , Germany. 2. b Cluster of Excellence 'Hearing4all' , Oldenburg , Germany , and. 3. c Centre of Competence HörTech gGmbH , Oldenburg , Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Two modifications of the standardised MUlti Stimulus test with Hidden Reference and Anchor (MUSHRA), namely MUSHRA simple and MUSHRA drag&drop, were implemented and evaluated together with the original test method. The modifications were designed to maximise the accessibility of MUSHRA for elderly and technically non-experienced listeners, who constitute the typical target group in hearing aid evaluation. DESIGN: Three MUSHRA variants were assessed based on subjective and objective measures, e.g. test-retest reliability, discrimination ability, time exposure and overall preference. With each method, participants repeated the task to rate the quality of several hearing aid algorithms four times. STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty listeners grouped into five subject classes were tested, including elderly and technically non-experienced participants with normal and impaired hearing. Normal-hearing, technically experienced students served as controls. RESULTS: Both modifications can be used to obtain compatible rating results. Both were preferred over the classical MUSHRA procedure. Technically experienced listeners performed best with the modification MUSHRA drag&drop. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive comparison of the MUSHRA variants demonstrates that the intuitive modification MUSHRA drag&drop can be generally recommended. However, considering e.g. specific evaluation demands, we suggest a differentiated and careful application of listening test methods.
OBJECTIVE: Two modifications of the standardised MUlti Stimulus test with Hidden Reference and Anchor (MUSHRA), namely MUSHRA simple and MUSHRA drag&drop, were implemented and evaluated together with the original test method. The modifications were designed to maximise the accessibility of MUSHRA for elderly and technically non-experienced listeners, who constitute the typical target group in hearing aid evaluation. DESIGN: Three MUSHRA variants were assessed based on subjective and objective measures, e.g. test-retest reliability, discrimination ability, time exposure and overall preference. With each method, participants repeated the task to rate the quality of several hearing aid algorithms four times. STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty listeners grouped into five subject classes were tested, including elderly and technically non-experienced participants with normal and impaired hearing. Normal-hearing, technically experienced students served as controls. RESULTS: Both modifications can be used to obtain compatible rating results. Both were preferred over the classical MUSHRA procedure. Technically experienced listeners performed best with the modification MUSHRA drag&drop. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive comparison of the MUSHRA variants demonstrates that the intuitive modification MUSHRA drag&drop can be generally recommended. However, considering e.g. specific evaluation demands, we suggest a differentiated and careful application of listening test methods.
Entities:
Keywords:
MUSHRA; hearing aid algorithms; perceptual evaluation; quality; subjective evaluation