Objective comparison of auditory profiles using manifold learning and intrinsic measures
Objective comparison of auditory profiles using manifold learning and intrinsic measures
Assigning individuals with hearing impairment to auditory profiles can support a better understanding of the causes and consequences of hearing loss and facilitate profile-based hearing-aid fitting. However, the factors influencing auditory profile generation remain insufficiently understood, and existing profiling frameworks have rarely been compared systematically. This study therefore investigated the impact of two key factors - the clustering method and the number of profiles - on auditory profile generation. In addition, eight established auditory profiling frameworks were systematically reviewed and compared using intrinsic statistical measures and manifold learning techniques. Frameworks were evaluated with respect to internal consistency (i.e., grouping similar individuals) and cluster separation (i.e., clear differentiation between groups). To ensure comparability, all analyses were conducted on a common open-access dataset, the extended Oldenburg Hearing Health Record (OHHR), comprising 1,127 participants (mean age = 67.2 years, SD = 12.0). Results showed that both the clustering method and the chosen number of profiles substantially influenced the resulting auditory profiles. Among purely audiogram-based approaches, the Bisgaard auditory profiles demonstrated the strongest clustering performance, whereas audiometric phenotypes performed worst. Among frameworks incorporating supra-threshold information in addition to the audiogram, the Hearing4All auditory profiles were advantageous, combining a near-optimal number of profile classes (N = 13) with high clustering quality, as indicated by a low Davies-Bouldin index. In conclusion, manifold learning and intrinsic measures enable systematic comparison of auditory profiling frameworks and identify the Hearing4All auditory profile as a promising approach for future research.
Xu, Chen
73268368-81b7-46b9-b752-5d0392977212
Kollmeier, Birger
6de18374-5a52-4ca2-8d1f-08b32ca43942
Schell-Majoor, Lena
78187eff-316c-4cfc-ba26-2a4f2a0cf893
7 January 2026
Xu, Chen
73268368-81b7-46b9-b752-5d0392977212
Kollmeier, Birger
6de18374-5a52-4ca2-8d1f-08b32ca43942
Schell-Majoor, Lena
78187eff-316c-4cfc-ba26-2a4f2a0cf893
[Unknown type: UNSPECIFIED]
Abstract
Assigning individuals with hearing impairment to auditory profiles can support a better understanding of the causes and consequences of hearing loss and facilitate profile-based hearing-aid fitting. However, the factors influencing auditory profile generation remain insufficiently understood, and existing profiling frameworks have rarely been compared systematically. This study therefore investigated the impact of two key factors - the clustering method and the number of profiles - on auditory profile generation. In addition, eight established auditory profiling frameworks were systematically reviewed and compared using intrinsic statistical measures and manifold learning techniques. Frameworks were evaluated with respect to internal consistency (i.e., grouping similar individuals) and cluster separation (i.e., clear differentiation between groups). To ensure comparability, all analyses were conducted on a common open-access dataset, the extended Oldenburg Hearing Health Record (OHHR), comprising 1,127 participants (mean age = 67.2 years, SD = 12.0). Results showed that both the clustering method and the chosen number of profiles substantially influenced the resulting auditory profiles. Among purely audiogram-based approaches, the Bisgaard auditory profiles demonstrated the strongest clustering performance, whereas audiometric phenotypes performed worst. Among frameworks incorporating supra-threshold information in addition to the audiogram, the Hearing4All auditory profiles were advantageous, combining a near-optimal number of profile classes (N = 13) with high clustering quality, as indicated by a low Davies-Bouldin index. In conclusion, manifold learning and intrinsic measures enable systematic comparison of auditory profiling frameworks and identify the Hearing4All auditory profile as a promising approach for future research.
Text
2601.03827v1
- Author's Original
More information
Published date: 7 January 2026
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 509740
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/509740
PURE UUID: 9145d240-49be-4771-9f06-656d64ffeb55
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 03 Mar 2026 18:04
Last modified: 04 Mar 2026 03:14
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Chen Xu
Author:
Birger Kollmeier
Author:
Lena Schell-Majoor
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics