Comparison of Manual and Computer-Controlled Audiometry Using Identical Procedures

Abstract

Ten normal-hearing subjects were evaluated with both manual and computer controlled audiometry using the ascending threshold determination method as proposed by ISO. The study shows that the thresholds obtained with the two different techniques correlate well and that standard deviations for the test--retest difference are significantly lower in the computer-controlled situation. The results also indicate that computer-controlled audiometry may be of importance in general clinical applications giving rapid and reliable threshold determination.

Hearing Assessment—Reliability, Accuracy, and Efficiency of Automated Audiometry

“…15 Although not statistically significant, test-retest correspondence for automated audiometry was slightly better than manual audiometry with a correspondingly higher correlation coefficient (0.75 vs. 0.66). A similar pattern was previously reported by Jerlvall et al 10 in their comparison of manual and automated pure-tone audiometry. 10 The objective nature of the automated procedure means that threshold-seeking procedures and criteria for determining the threshold are consistently applied without bias.…”

“…A similar pattern was previously reported by Jerlvall et al 10 in their comparison of manual and automated pure-tone audiometry. 10 The objective nature of the automated procedure means that threshold-seeking procedures and criteria for determining the threshold are consistently applied without bias. Although this should be the case in manual testing that follows a set threshold-seeking procedure and threshold criteria, there is still subjective decision making on the part of the clinician.…”

“…This similarity in test time was also reported in earlier studies that presented with similar average test durations. 10,12 Interestingly, subjects preferred the automated audiometry threshold-seeking technique. This may be attributed to the predictable nature of the threshold presentations for this specific automated protocol.…”

“…As a result, automated audiometry may present with slightly better test-retest reliability based on group data and also avoid any possibility of variability between clinicians. 10 Accuracy of automated audiometry was defined according to the correspondence to the gold standard of conventional manual audiometry. The threshold difference between automated and manual audiometry in the normal-hearing group was not statistically significant, and threshold correspondence (87% and 89% within 5 dB for conditions 1 and 2, respectively) was similar to that of test-retest correspondence for manual audiometry (88% within 5 dB).…”

“…7,9 Although limited studies in automated pure-tone audiometry are available, early studies reported good threshold correspondence with conventional manual audiometry. [10][11][12] Clinically, however, it has not been included by audiologists as part of the diagnostic audiological test battery, and validation in hearing-impaired subjects is limited. 7 Recent improvements in technology have made the application of automated audiometry significantly more feasible since these early reports.…”