Experimental Studies on the Reliability of Audiometry

Brown, Ron; Dickson, E. D. D.

doi:10.1017/s0022215100009269

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The High and Gallo (1963) results reported in the table are somewhat lower than those of Brown (1948), but represent the mean of six testing occasions per ear. If we average the two sets of same-ear, test-retest correlations, the Brown Brown(1948)differ slightlyfrom those tabled, since he actualIy employedoctavesstarting with256 Hz rather than the usual250 Hz. tThese are meantest-retest correlationsover six occasions (hence the means of 15 interoccasion correlations).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…In addition, we calculated what the standard deviation of difference scores would have been had the individual ear scores been independent. We performed the same calculations on the test-retest data of Brown (1948) and High and Gallo (1963), used earlier, for comparative purposes (the latter based upon the (TOiff for the first and second testing only, to be more comparable to Brown's data). These computations are easily made using the reported single-occasion standard deviations and the interoccasion correlations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methodological implications of interaural correlation: Count heads not ears

Coren

Hakstian

1990

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a sample of 425 subjects, pure-tone hearing thresholds between the right and left ears were shown to have an average correlation of .885 (or .783 with age partialed out). This high interaural correlation is shown to invalidate the experimental procedure of entering data on the basis of "ears," where each subject can contribute one or two audiograms to the data pool, since such aggregation is demonstrated to produce spuriously high levels of apparent statistical significance in inferential statistical tests.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological implications of interaural correlation: Count heads not ears

Coren

Hakstian

1990

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the 1940s to 1960s, several investigators studied the reliability of auditory threshold measurements. [1][2][3][4][5] The two most popular indices used for assessing the reliability of audiometric thresholds in these early studies were intra-and intersubject standard deviation (SD) values. However, other measures, such as correlation analyses, have also been employed.…”

Section: Audiometric Thresholdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, Brown investigated the intersubject reliability of pure tone thresholds in 30 Royal Air Force personnel, who were tested at two intervals not exceeding 25 minutes. 1 These subjects had varying degrees and types of hearing losses. Pure tone thresholds were measured at seven frequencies from 128 to 8,192 Hz, using two different audiometers.…”

Section: Audiometric Thresholdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Learning Outcomes: As a result of this activity, the participant will be able to (1) distinguish between repeated measures of intra-and intersubject variability for pure tone thresholds, absolute measurements of loudness discomfort levels, and categorical loudness judgments in older adults with normal-hearing sensitivity; and (2) list similarities and differences in their repeated measures of loudness for warble tones of different frequency and for spondee speech stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intra- and Intersubject Variability in Audiometric Measures and Loudness Judgments in Older Listeners with Normal Hearing

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research was to document intra- and intersubject variability in measures of pure tone thresholds, loudness discomfort levels, and the Contour test of loudness for tonal and speech stimuli across 8 to 10 repeated test sessions over a period of almost 1 year in a group of 11 normal-hearing, older middle-aged adults (39 to 73 years, mean of 56 years). The measured pure tone thresholds and loudness discomfort levels were determined to be stable across sessions, with variability on the order of 5 dB. The categorical judgments for the Contour test for both warbled tones and spondaic speech stimuli decreased over time in level required for categories greater than comfortable. This result contrasts with reports of a slight increase over time when young, normal-hearing adults were tested in comparable measures. The intrasubject variability in the Contour test results was greatest for the 4,000-Hz tonal stimulus for which the largest time effects were observed. The intersubject variability was typically greater than the intrasubject variability and typically increased as the loudness category increased, with some exceptions. The results from this study can be used to aid in power and sample size analyses using these measures in future studies designed to compare effects of treatments based on changes in loudness judgments over time.

show abstract

Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Using Investigational Medicines for the Inner Ear: Previous Trial Outcomes Should Inform Future Trial Design

Prell

2022

Antioxidants & Redox Signaling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significance. Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is an important public health issue resulting in decreased quality of life for affected individuals and significant costs to employers and governmental agencies.Recent Advances. Advances in the mechanistic understanding of NIHL have prompted a growing number of proposed, in-progress, and completed clinical trials for possible protections against NIHL via antioxidants and other drug agents. Thirty-one clinical trials evaluating prevention of either temporary or permanent NIHL were identified and are reviewed.Critical Issues. This review revealed little consistency in the noise-exposed populations in which drugs are evaluated or the primary outcomes used to measure NIHL prevention.Changes in pure-tone thresholds were the most common primary outcome; specific threshold metrics included both average hearing loss and incidence of significant hearing loss. Changes in otoacoustic emission (OAE) amplitude were a relatively common secondary outcome. Extended high frequency (EHF) hearing and speech-in-noise perception are commonly adversely affected by noise exposure but are not consistently included in clinical trials assessing prevention of NIHL.Future Directions. Multiple criteria are available for monitoring NIHL, but the specific criterion to be used to define clinically significant otoprotection remains a topic of discussion. Audiogram-based primary outcome measures can be combined with secondary outcomes, including OAE amplitude, EHF hearing, speech-in-noise testing, tinnitus surveys, and patient-reported outcomes. Standardization of test protocols for the above primary and secondary outcomes, and associated reporting criterion for each, would facilitate clinical trial design and comparison of results across investigational drug agents.

show abstract

Experimental Studies on the Reliability of Audiometry

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Methodological implications of interaural correlation: Count heads not ears

Methodological implications of interaural correlation: Count heads not ears

Intra- and Intersubject Variability in Audiometric Measures and Loudness Judgments in Older Listeners with Normal Hearing

Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Using Investigational Medicines for the Inner Ear: Previous Trial Outcomes Should Inform Future Trial Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About