A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world

Speech perception in noise: Impact of directional microphones in users of combined electric-acoustic stimulation.

OBJECTIVES:Combined electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) is a well-accepted therapeutic treatment for cochlear implant (CI) users with residual hearing in the low frequencies but severe to profound hearing loss in the high frequencies. The recently introduced SONNETeas audio processor offers different microphone directionality (MD) settings and wind noise reduction (WNR) as front-end processing. The aim of this study was to compare speech perception in quiet and noise between two EAS audio processors DUET 2 and SONNETeas, to assess the impact of MD and WNR on speech perception in EAS users in the absence of wind. Furthermore, subjective rating of hearing performance was registered. METHOD:Speech perception and subjective rating with SONNETeas or DUET 2 audio processor were assessed in 10 experienced EAS users. Speech perception was measured in quiet and in a diffuse noise setup (MSNF). The SONNETeas processor was tested with three MD settings omnidirectional/natural/adaptive and with different intensities of WNR. Subjective rating of auditory benefit and sound quality was rated using two questionnaires. RESULTS:There was no significant difference between DUET 2 and SONNETeas processor using the omnidirectional microphone in quiet and in noise. There was a significant improvement in SRT with MD settings natural (2.2 dB) and adaptive (3.6 dB). No detrimental effect of the WNR algorithm on speech perception was found in the absence of wind. Sound quality was rated as "moderate" for both audio processors. CONCLUSIONS:The different MD settings of the SONNETeas can provide EAS users with better speech perception compared to an omnidirectional microphone. Concerning speech perception in quiet and quality of life, the performance of the DUET 2 and SONNETeas audio processors was comparable

Mean spatial release from masking (SRM) and standard deviation (SD).

<p>Mean spatial release from masking (SRM) and standard deviation (SD).</p

Individual pure-tone thresholds (air conduction) of the bimodal CI group (n = 7) measured in the non-implanted ear.

<p>Individual pure-tone thresholds (air conduction) of the bimodal CI group (n = 7) measured in the non-implanted ear.</p

Study participants.

<p>Study participants.</p

Improvement of SRT in beamforming conditions <i>fixed</i> and <i>adaptive</i> in S₀N_move.

<p><i>Standard</i> directionality condition was used as reference. Left: bimodal CI recipients, right: bilateral CI recipients (COCHLEAR CP810). The asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference in SRT between setting <i>fixed</i> and <i>adaptive</i> (*<i>p</i> < 0.05, **<i>p</i> < 0.01).</p

128 loudspeakers in a horizontal rectangular array used for speech in noise evaluation.

<p>Speech was always presented from 0°. Four adjacent loudspeakers were combined in parallel for speech playback to avoid distortions. The moving noise source N_move was generated by means of wave field synthesis.</p

Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) of all participants in all test conditions.

<p>CI users were tested with <i>standard</i> directional setting. The asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference in SRT between S₀N₀ and S₀N_move (*<i>p</i> < 0.05, **<i>p</i> < 0.01, ***<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p

Comparison of stereophonic and wave field synthesis playback.

<p>Left: Calculated sound field generated by two sound sources (f = 1 kHz) at positions (x = ±1 m, y = 2 m) comparable to stereophonic playback (equal amplitudes). Right: Simulated wave field synthesis (n = 40 loudspeakers, Δx = 8.6 cm) corresponding to the setup installed in the present study. The result of each playback method is a virtual sound source at position (x = 0 m, y = 2 m). For stereophonic playback, the area of exact sound field is limited to a very narrow “sweet spot” (between dashed lines), whereas wave field synthesis can cover a much larger listening area.</p

Outcome Prediction of Speech Perception in Quiet and in Noise for Cochlear Implant Candidates Based on Pre-Operative Measures

(1) Background: The fitting of cochlear implants (CI) is an established treatment, even in cases with considerable residual hearing but insufficient speech perception. The aim of this study was to evaluate a prediction model for speech in quiet and to provide reference data and a predictive model for postoperative speech perception in noise (SPiN) after CI provision. (2) Methods: CI candidates with substantial residual hearing (either in hearing threshold or in word recognition scores) were included in a retrospective analysis (n = 87). Speech perception scores in quiet 12 months post-surgery were compared with the predicted scores. A generalized linear model was fitted to speech reception thresholds (SRTs) after CI fitting to identify predictive variables for SPiN. (3) Results: About two-thirds of the recipients achieved the expected outcome in quiet or were better than expected. The mean absolute error of the prediction was 13.5 percentage points. Age at implantation was the only predictive factor for SPiN showing a significant correlation (r = 0.354; p = 0.007). (4) Conclusions: Outcome prediction accuracy for speech in quiet was comparable to previous studies. For CI recipients in the included study population, the SPiN outcome could be predicted only based on the factor age