## 4 Discussion
### Acoustic Environments and Self-Adjustments  
The analysis of acoustic environments experienced by the participants aligns with that in previous research, such as that of [PERSON] et al. [17], who documented similar everyday acoustic scenarios in their study of hearing aid users. The most common environment observed in our study was \"Speech in Quiet\", followed by \"Speech in Noise\" and \"Noise\", which mirrors the order reported by [PERSON]. However, individual variability was evident, as the specific acoustic situations encountered by the participants differed significantly. While, for example, the average data in Figure 4 well reflect the experiences of participants MHH01 and MHH02, participants such as MHH04 or MHH08 show different distributions for their experienced everyday situations. This variability underscores the importance of tailoring self-adjustment tools to accommodate the diverse environments that users experience daily. Furthermore, it is important to note the significantly different number of data points indicated by \"n\" in the headings of Figure 5. The occasionally low number of measurement points may have been due to participants only connecting via Bluetooth to their smartphones to make self-adjustments and otherwise using the Bluetooth connection for other purposes. This was often observed in participants who were specifically provided with an iPhone for this study and did not connect with their own smartphone. In addition to the alternative use of the Bluetooth connection, everyday circumstances can also have an impact. As [PERSON] [17] showed in her study, participants may turn off their smartphones in situations such as meetings, in the cinema, or in church. Additionally, there is often no Bluetooth connection during physical activities or if the smartphone is simply forgotten at home. It should therefore be noted that although, on average, the distribution of acoustic situations presented in this study and by [PERSON] can be assumed, individual deviations from this generally valid distribution always occur and their needs must also be met.  
Significant deviations were observed in the frequency of self-adjustments across different acoustic environments. Notably, self-adjustments were more frequent in the \"Speech in Noise\" condition, a challenging environment for CI users [4; 5; 6], and less frequent in the \"Noise\" condition, which typically provides less auditory content. This pattern suggests that participants were more likely to engage in self-adjustment in environments where they struggled to understand speech, aligning with the findings of [PERSON] et al. [18] that emphasized the importance of hearing well in communication-focused situations. However, we also observed that the participants were less likely to make adjustments in certain acoustic environments, such as \"noise\". We interpreted this as an indication that the participants did not perceive the need for adjustments when speech comprehension was not the primary concern. In such contexts, participants may have relied on the automatic settings or simply chose not to engage with the app, as the priority shifted away from speech understanding to environmental awareness. This highlights the importance of considering the context in which users are interacting with the app, as it could influence their decision to adjust the settings.