Clinical comparison of two automated audiometry procedures

Liu, Hui; Du, Beibei; Liu, Bo; Fu, Xinxing; Wang, Yao

doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.1011016

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our previous study, we performed a comparison of manual and automated tests under sound-isolation conditions and found that the reliability at 250 Hz and 8,000 Hz was worse than at other frequencies (Liu et al, 2022), however, this phenomenon did not occur in the present group of subjects, which may be related to the use of different headphones. In the previous study, insert headphones were used for automated audiometry and circumaural earphones were used for manual audiometry; in the present study, KUDUwave audiometer were used for both manual-and automated pure-tone audiometry, which eliminates the calibration differences that were introduced by two different devices, and could easily interpret some changes in hearing thresholds.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 49%

Comparisons of air-conduction hearing thresholds between manual and automated methods in a commercial audiometer

Liu,

Fu,

et al. 2023

Front. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo investigate the correlation of air-conduction thresholds between automated audiometry in a non-isolated environment and manual audiometry in participants with normal hearing and different degrees of hearing loss.MethodsEighty-three participants aged 11–88 years old underwent automated pure-tone audiometry in a non-acoustically isolated environment, and the results were compared with those of manual pure-tone audiometry performed in a standard acoustically isolated booth, with the order of testing randomised. Six frequencies of 250, 500, 1,000, 2000, 4,000 and 8,000 Hz were tested.ResultsAll 166 ears were completed and 996 valid hearing threshold data were obtained, with 28 data exceeding the 95% confidence interval in the Bland–Altman plot, accounting for 2.81% of all data. The means and standard deviations of the differences for the six frequencies from 250 to 8,000 Hz were, respectively, 0.63 ± 5.31, 0.69 ± 4.50, 0.45 ± 4.99, 0.3 ± 6.2, −0.15 ± 4.8, and 0.21 ± 4.97 dB. The correlation coefficients of the two test results for normal hearing, mild, moderate, severe and above hearing loss groups were 0.95, 0.92, 0.97, and 0.96, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the automated and manual audiometry thresholds for the age groups under 40 years, 40–60 years, and 60 years above, were 0.98, 0.97 and 0.97, respectively, with all being statistically significant (p < 0.01). The response time of the three age groups were 791 ± 181 ms, 900 ± 190 ms and 1,063 ± 332 ms, respectively, and there was a significant difference between the groups under 40 years and over 60 years.ConclusionThere was good consistency between automated pure-tone audiometry in a non-acoustically isolated environment and manual pure-tone audiometry in participants with different hearing levels and different age groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 49%

Comparisons of air-conduction hearing thresholds between manual and automated methods in a commercial audiometer

Liu,

Fu,

et al. 2023

Front. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ambient noise monitoring systems embedded in automated audiometric systems are already available in industry that ‘ensure testing compliance’ [ 28 , 29 ]. Unfortunately, no details are available on what exactly the decisions being made by the software are, nor which criteria should be met for these decisions to be made.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambient Noise in Candidate Rooms for User-Operated Audiometry

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hearing loss is a widespread problem while treatment is not always accessible, mainly because of the limited availability of hearing care professionals and clinics. In this work, part of the User-Operated Audiometry project, we investigate the acoustic environment of inexpensive non-sound-treated rooms that could be used for unsupervised audiometric testing. Measurements of 10 min of ambient noise were taken from 20 non-sound-treated rooms in libraries and private and public clinics, nine of which were measured twice. Ambient noise was compared against two traditional audiometric sound-treated rooms and Maximum Permissible Ambient noise levels by ISO 8231-1, while factoring for the attenuation by the DD450 circumaural headphones provided. In most non-sound-treated rooms, MPAs were violated only by transient sounds, while the floor-noise level was below MPAs. Non-sound-treated rooms’ ambient noise levels presented with much larger fluctuations compared to sound-treated rooms. Almost all violations occurred at low to mid-low frequencies. Our results suggest that large-scale implementation of user-operated audiometry outside traditional audiometric rooms is possible, at least under some realizable conditions. Circumaural headphones’ attenuation is probably a necessary condition for all cases. Depending on the room, an online system making decisions based on ambient noise might also be included in combination with active attenuation.

show abstract

“…The accuracy of the STOI estimates of VCV intelligibility in the five languages was validated using psychometric estimates from previously conducted experimental subjective tests [15,16] in a 3AFC speech recognition task. The three alternatives followed a maximal opposition criterion: the two wrong alternatives differ from the spoken stimulus in manner, voicing, and place of articulation (for example, ata, ava, ama) (details are reported in: [12,21,22]) and subjects had to select their response among the three alternatives displayed on a touch-sensitive screen.…”

Section: Intelligibility Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, hearing screening at a distance may open new challenges in hearing health care. For example, remote testing using pure-tone audiometry has limitations in terms of output levels calibration and sensitivity to environmental noise [16]. Speech-in-noise testing can help overcome this limitation, but language-specific test stimuli may lead to issues with non-native listeners [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of the Intelligibility of Vowel–Consonant–Vowel (VCV) Recordings in Five Languages for Application in Speech-in-Noise Screening in Multilingual Settings

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to characterize the intelligibility of a corpus of Vowel–Consonant–Vowel (VCV) stimuli recorded in five languages (English, French, German, Italian and Portuguese) in order to identify a subset of stimuli for screening individuals of unknown language during speech-in-noise tests. The intelligibility of VCV stimuli was estimated by combining the psychometric functions derived from the Short-Time Objective Intelligibility (STOI) measure with those derived from listening tests. To compensate for the potential increase in speech recognition effort in non-native listeners, stimuli were selected based on three criteria: (i) higher intelligibility; (ii) lower variability of intelligibility; and (iii) shallower psychometric function. The observed intelligibility estimates show that the three criteria for application in multilingual settings were fulfilled by the set of VCVs in English (average intelligibility from 1% to 8% higher; SRT from 4.01 to 2.04 dB SNR lower; average variability up to four times lower; slope from 0.35 to 0.68%/dB SNR lower). Further research is needed to characterize the intelligibility of these stimuli in a large sample of non-native listeners with varying degrees of hearing loss and to determine the possible effects of hearing loss and native language on VCV recognition.

show abstract

Clinical comparison of two automated audiometry procedures

Cited by 4 publications

References 17 publications

Comparisons of air-conduction hearing thresholds between manual and automated methods in a commercial audiometer

Comparisons of air-conduction hearing thresholds between manual and automated methods in a commercial audiometer

Ambient Noise in Candidate Rooms for User-Operated Audiometry

Characterization of the Intelligibility of Vowel–Consonant–Vowel (VCV) Recordings in Five Languages for Application in Speech-in-Noise Screening in Multilingual Settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About