To date, very few studies have been conducted focusing on ratings of music and music listening experience of hearing aid (HA) users. This study aimed to collect more detailed and descriptive information via a questionnaire, on the music listening experience and ratings of musical sounds from postlingually deafened adults. The following hypotheses were posed: (i) ratings for music from HA users who have been assessed for a cochlear implant (HA-CI group) will be worse than those who have not been assessed for a CI (HA-NCI group); and (ii) HA users with a moderate or worse hearing loss (Moderate+ subgroup) will provide lower ratings for music than those with a mild hearing loss (Mild subgroup). A questionnaire by She (2008), was modified for this study, and subsequently called the University of Canterbury Music Listening Questionnaire – HA version (UCMLQ_HA). The questionnaire was divided into the following seven sections: music listening and music background, sound quality ratings, music styles, music preferences, music recognition, factors affecting music listening enjoyment, and a music training programme. Thirteen HA-CI recipients and 98 HA-NCI recipients returned the questionnaire. The HA-NCI group was divided into two subgroups: mild hearing loss (n = 51), and moderate or worse hearing loss (Moderate+; n = 47). Essentially findings were consistent with hypothesis one, but only partially consistent with hypothesis two. The HA-CI group provided lower ratings for ‘pleasantness’ and ‘naturalness’ of instruments (p = 0.007), and found music styles to be less ‘pleasant’ (p < 0.001) than the HA-NCI group. For musical styles, the HA-CI group preferred solo performers whereas the HA-NCI group preferred groups of performers. In addition to ratings of music, the HA-CI group provided significantly lower ratings for music listening (p = 0.001), and overall music enjoyment (p = 0.021) than the HA-NCI group. For the comparisons between the Mild and Moderate+ subgroups, the Mild subgroup found Instruments to sound significantly ‘less noisy’ (p < 0.001) and ‘less sharp’ (p < 0.001) than the Moderate+ subgroup. The Moderate+ subgroup provided higher ratings for overall enjoyment of listening to music with HAs than the Mild subgroup (p = 0.044). Both subgroups rated the drum kit (the lowest rated Instrument) to be significantly less pleasant and less natural than all other Instruments. It was also found that all musical styles were significantly more pleasant than Pop/Rock. There were similarities between the groups for music preferences; the male singer was significantly preferred over female singers (p = 0.021), and low-pitched instruments were significantly preferred over high-pitched instruments (p = 0.04). Classical music was also selected as the style that sounded the best with their HAs and listened to the most often. Almost all of the respondents indicated that they would like music in general to sound it would to those with normal hearing (97.1%). Close to 30% indicated that they would be interested in an MTP and would like it to focus on a wide range of music and feature commonly known tunes. In addition, training sessions should consist of two 30 minute sessions per week. Overall this study indicates that ratings of music differ with level of hearing loss to some degree. The general consensus was that music did not sound as they would expect it to sound to a person with normal hearing, and that respondents would like to enjoy listening to music more.

To date, very few studies have been conducted focusing on ratings of music and music listening experience of hearing aid (HA) users. This study aimed to collect more detailed and descriptive information via a questionnaire, on the music listening experience and ratings of musical sounds from postlingually deafened adults. The following hypotheses were posed: (i) ratings for music from HA users who have been assessed for a cochlear implant (HA-CI group) will be worse than those who have not been assessed for a CI (HA-NCI group); and (ii) HA users with a moderate or worse hearing loss (Moderate+ subgroup) will provide lower ratings for music than those with a mild hearing loss (Mild subgroup). A questionnaire by She (2008), was modified for this study, and subsequently called the University of Canterbury Music Listening Questionnaire – HA version (UCMLQ_HA). The questionnaire was divided into the following seven sections: music listening and music background, sound quality ratings, music styles, music preferences, music recognition, factors affecting music listening enjoyment, and a music training programme. Thirteen HA-CI recipients and 98 HA-NCI recipients returned the questionnaire. The HA-NCI group was divided into two subgroups: mild hearing loss (n = 51), and moderate or worse hearing loss (Moderate+; n = 47). Essentially findings were consistent with hypothesis one, but only partially consistent with hypothesis two. The HA-CI group provided lower ratings for ‘pleasantness’ and ‘naturalness’ of instruments (p = 0.007), and found music styles to be less ‘pleasant’ (p < 0.001) than the HA-NCI group. For musical styles, the HA-CI group preferred solo performers whereas the HA-NCI group preferred groups of performers. In addition to ratings of music, the HA-CI group provided significantly lower ratings for music listening (p = 0.001), and overall music enjoyment (p = 0.021) than the HA-NCI group. For the comparisons between the Mild and Moderate+ subgroups, the Mild subgroup found Instruments to sound significantly ‘less noisy’ (p < 0.001) and ‘less sharp’ (p < 0.001) than the Moderate+ subgroup. The Moderate+ subgroup provided higher ratings for overall enjoyment of listening to music with HAs than the Mild subgroup (p = 0.044). Both subgroups rated the drum kit (the lowest rated Instrument) to be significantly less pleasant and less natural than all other Instruments. It was also found that all musical styles were significantly more pleasant than Pop/Rock. There were similarities between the groups for music preferences; the male singer was significantly preferred over female singers (p = 0.021), and low-pitched instruments were significantly preferred over high-pitched instruments (p = 0.04). Classical music was also selected as the style that sounded the best with their HAs and listened to the most often. Almost all of the respondents indicated that they would like music in general to sound it would to those with normal hearing (97.1%). Close to 30% indicated that they would be interested in an MTP and would like it to focus on a wide range of music and feature commonly known tunes. In addition, training sessions should consist of two 30 minute sessions per week. Overall this study indicates that ratings of music differ with level of hearing loss to some degree. The general consensus was that music did not sound as they would expect it to sound to a person with normal hearing, and that respondents would like to enjoy listening to music more.

Bakgrund: Personer i åldersspannet 65 till 85 år utgör en stor del av alla hörselskadade iSverige idag. Dessa utgör därmed en stor patientgrupp inom hörselvården. Således är detrelevant att inventera deras förväntningar på hörapparater eftersom förväntningar hos denblivande hörapparatanvändaren kan påverka resultatet vid hörapparatutprovningen. Patientermed höga förväntningar blir oftare nöjdare med sina hörapparater. Genom att ha ett brabemötande och vara lyhörd för patientens förväntningar och önskemål, samt ge patientenadekvat information, kan audionomen hjälpa patienten att uppnå en mer lyckadhörselrehabilitering.Syfte: Syftet med studien var att undersöka vilka förväntningar äldre blivandehörapparatanvändare i åldrarna 65 till 85 år har på hörapparater och hörapparatutprovningen.Metod: Elva blivande hörapparatanvändare intervjuades i en kvalitativ intervjustudie medsemistrukturerade frågor. Insamlade data analyserades sedan med en kvalitativinnehållsanalys.Resultat: Analysen av förväntningarna resulterade i fyra olika teman: förväntade effekter påhörandet, förväntningar på hörapparater, förväntade effekter på livssituationen ochförväntningar på hörapparatutprovningen.Slutsats: De uttryckta förväntningarna på hörapparater och hörapparatutprovningen vargenerellt positiva. Kärnan i förväntningarna handlar om förbättrad kommunikation och ökadlivskvalitet. Det finns också en medvetenhet om hörapparaters begränsningar. Audionomenförväntas kunna ge ett bra bemötande och sprida sina kunskaper till patienterna. För att göradetta behöver audionomen få verktyg för att identifiera och träna på att bemöta patientersförväntningar och på så sätt säkerställa nöjda hörapparatanvändare. / Background: Patients aged between 65-85 years is a large group of patients in the hearinghealth care. Hence, it is important to learn what their expectations may be comprised ofbecause expectations in potential hearing aid users may affect the result of the hearing aidfitting. Patients with high expectations are often more satisfied with their hearing aids. Theaudiologist can, by being responsive to patient's expectations and wishes, and give patientsadequate information, help patients to reach a more successful hearing rehabilitation.Purpose: The purpose of the study was to investigate expectations on hearing aids andhearing aid fitting in elderly (65-85 years) potential hearing aid users.Study design: Eleven participants were individually interviewed in a qualitative interviewstudywith semi-structured questions. Collected data were analysed with a qualitative contentanalysis.Result: The analysis of the expectations resulted in four different themes: expected effects onhearing, expectations on hearing aids, expectations on the life situation and expectations onhearing aid fitting.Conclusion: The expressed expectations on hearing aids and hearing aid fitting weregenerally positive. The core of the expectations contains improved communication andimproved quality of life. There is an awareness of hearing aid limitations. Audiologists areexpected to have a good reception and spread their knowledge to their patients. To do this, theaudiologist need to get tools to identify and practice meeting patients' expectations and thusensure satisfied hearing aid users.