Post on 17-Oct-2020
Rethinking Hearing Aids
as Recommender Systems
HealthRecSys ’19 – September 20th, 2019
Alessandro Pasta – Technical University of Denmark (alpas@dtu.dk)
Michael Kai Petersen – Eriksholm Research Centre (mkpe@eriksholm.com)
Kasper Juul Jensen – Oticon A/S (kjen@oticon.com)
Jakob Eg Larsen – Technical University of Denmark (jaeg@dtu.dk)
10%By 2050
Hearing Loss
will have disabling hearing loss 1
2 1 WHO (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss)
In 2019
33% of people over 65
have disabling hearing loss 1
of the world’s population
Treating Hearing Loss
3
Rethinking Hearing Aids as Recommender Systems
4
Item User
Complex device
configuration
Multiple parameters
influence the experience of
hearing-impaired users
Hearing is a
subjective sense
Users perceive the sounds
differently and might
benefit from a fully
personalized hearing aid
configuration
Rating
Learning user
preferences
How to effectively gather
them in multiple real-world
situations?
Context
Constantly changing
sound environment
Users might have different
preferences in different
situations
Rethinking Hearing Aids as Recommender Systems
5
1. Fitting SpaceIt’s the space defined by the different
possible combinations of settings that
can be applied to a hearing aid, based on
the audiogram of the user.
Rethinking Hearing Aids as Recommender Systems
65 Mead C Killion. (2002). “New thinking on hearing in noise: a generalized articulation index”, Seminars in Hearing, vol. 23 no. 16 Marozeau, J., and Florentine, M. (2007), “Loudness growth in individual listeners with hearing losses: A review”, Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America: JASA express letters, vol. 122, pages EL81-EL87
1. Fitting SpaceIt’s the space defined by the different
possible combinations of settings that
can be applied to a hearing aid.
2. Default ConfigurationThe default configuration is a
combination of medium settings, adopted
when user preferences are not known.
Previous research showed that people
have different characteristics and hearing
preferences. 5,6
Default
Configuration
Rethinking Hearing Aids as Recommender Systems
7
1. Fitting SpaceIt’s the space defined by the different
possible combinations of settings that
can be applied to a hearing aid.
2. Default ConfigurationThe default configuration is a
combination of medium settings, adopted
when user preferences are not known.
3. Recommended ConfigurationA personalised configuration can be
recommended, based on some specific
characteristics and preferences of the single
user.
HOW TO RECOMMEND A PERSONALISED
CONFIGURATION?
✓ Simplifying the complex audiological space
✓ Gathering user preferences in real-world
situations
Default
Configuration
Recommended
Configuration
1 6
Gender
15 16
75
19 20 19
0
20
40
A B C D E F G
Years
User
Experience with Hearing Aids
The Study Participants
8
The Study Timeline
9
Level 1Soft Gain
Level 2Soft Gain
Level 3Soft Gain
Level 4Soft Gain
Level 1Noise reduction and
directionality
Level 2Noise reduction and
directionality
Level 3Noise reduction and
directionality
Level 4Noise reduction and
directionality
Level 1Brightness
Level 2Brightness
Level 3Brightness
Level 4Brightness
Week 1
Evaluation of Parameter A
Noise reduction and directionality
Week 2
Evaluation of Parameter B
Brightness
Week 3
Evaluation of Parameter C
Soft gain
Week 4
Final test of preferencePrescribed
Configuration
Personalized
Configuration
Level 1Soft Gain
Level 2Soft Gain
Level 3Soft Gain
Level 4Soft Gain
Level 1Noise reduction and
directionality
Level 2Noise reduction and
directionality
Level 3Noise reduction and
directionality
Level 4Noise reduction and
directionality
Level 1Brightness
Level 2Brightness
Level 3Brightness
Level 4Brightness
1What is the
perceived
usefulness of the
parameters?
Usefulness of the 3 Parameters
11
3,4
4,0
1,2
2,3
3,3
1,6
2,7
4,0
4,6
3,33,6
4,3
3,3
4,4
3,6
4,5
2,6
1,2
3,2 3,1
4,2
1
2
3
4
5
A B C D E F G
Ave
rage
use
fuln
ess
User
Average usefulness of the 3 parameters
Noise Reduction and Directionality (n=94) Brightness (n=98) Soft Gain (n=103)
12
2Do people have
different
preferences?
13
3Does the same
person have
different
preferences?
Noise Reduction and DirectionalityUser preferences when the parameter is considered to be useful (Usefulness > 2 out of 5)
14
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
A(n=5)
B(n=9)
C(n=0)
D(n=4)
E(n=13)
F(n=1)
G(n=20)
Pre
fere
nce
User
Preferred Noise Reduction and Directionality Levels
Lev. 4
Lev. 3
Lev. 2
Lev. 1 Incre
ase in N
R
BrightnessUser preferences when the parameter is considered to be useful (Usefulness > 2 out of 5)
15
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
A(n=5)
B(n=10)
C(n=7)
D(n=8)
E(n=7)
F(n=12)
G(n=42)
Pre
fere
nce
User
Preferred Brightness Levels
Lev. 4
Lev. 3
Lev. 2
Lev. 1
Incre
ase in B
rightn
ess
Soft GainUser preferences when the parameter is considered to be useful (Usefulness > 2 out of 5)
16
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
A(n=6)
B(n=16)
C(n=4)
D(n=0)
E(n=11)
F(n=6)
G(n=37)
Pre
fere
nce
User
Preferred Soft Gain Levels
Lev. 4
Lev. 3
Lev. 2
Lev. 1
Incre
ase in S
oft G
ain
17
Personalized
Configuration
4Is real-world
personalization
preferred to how
hearing aids are
fitted in a standard
clinical workflow?
Prescribed
Configuration
Test of Preference
18
✓ 6 out of 7 users preferred the Personalized Configuration
✓ Some users fine-tuned the hearing aids for speech situations
✓ Participants liked to have more than one configuration
Conclusions
19
Item User
We simplified the
audiological design
space and isolated the
most important
parameters.
Users exhibited
different audiological
preferences.
Rating
The device configuration
learned in multiple real-
world environments was
preferred to a traditional
configuration.
Context
The same user
exhibited different
preferences in different
contexts.
Th nk you
Icons made by FreePik and PixelBuddha from www.flaticon.com