Abstract:
Purpose/Aims: Little attention has been placed on how hearing loss and hearing rehabilitation affects a patient’s emotional response to sounds. This study addresses this gap by considering three questions: 1) Is there a quantifiable difference in the emotional response to non-speech sounds between those with high frequency sensorineural hearing loss and individuals with normal hearing? 2) For those with high frequency sensorineural hearing loss, is the loss of high frequency sensation a contributing factor to their differing emotional response to non-speech sounds? 3) What impact do hearing aids have on the emotional response to non-speech sounds for individuals with hearing loss?
Method: Two groups of adults participated in the study: nine participants formed the Normally Hearing group, and nine participants with high frequency sensorineural hearing loss and current users of hearing aids formed the Hearing Loss group. To assess participants’ emotional responses towards non-speech sounds, participants rated how the sounds made them feel via the Self-Assessment Manikin. Skin conductance and heartrate measures were also taken to assess participants’ physiological responses and infer emotional arousal. Two different conditions were considered. In the first, participants from the Hearing Loss group listened to sounds with their hearing aids on, while those in the Normally Hearing group listened to sounds normally. In the second condition, participants from the Hearing Loss group listened to sounds unaided, while the Normally Hearing group had a ‘simulated high frequency hearing loss’ imposed by applying a low pass filter to the non-speech sounds.
Results: Results revealed that those with hearing loss rated pleasant sounds as less pleasant, unpleasant sounds as less unpleasant, highly arousing sounds as less arousing, and low arousal sounds as more arousing. When the Normally Hearing group had a simulated hearing loss imposed, they rated sounds in general as more unpleasant, highly arousing sounds as less
arousing and low arousal sounds as more arousing, relative to when they listened to sounds normally. The Normally Hearing group also showed less physiological arousal, indexed by skin conductance measures, towards pleasant and unpleasant sounds when listening with a ‘simulated hearing loss’ compared to when listening normally. Lastly, results showed that when wearing hearing aids the Hearing Loss group rated sounds in general as more pleasant, they also rated highly arousing sounds as more arousing, relative to when listening without their hearing aids. However, there were no further significant differences when the Hearing Loss group listened aided compared to when listening unaided.
Conclusions: Individuals with a hearing loss are less emotionally affected by emotional non-speech sounds. Notably, the study also suggests that the loss of high frequency sensation experienced by someone with high frequency sensorineural hearing loss, is a contributing factor to their differing emotional response, although other factors may also contribute. Lastly, hearing aids appear to do little to rehabilitate the emotional response to pleasant, unpleasant and calming non-speech sounds for those with hearing loss.