Stimulus and transducer effects on threshold

Abstract

Objective This study examined differences in thresholds obtained under Sennheiser HDA200 circumaural earphones using pure tone, equivalent rectangular noise bands, and 1/3 octave noise bands relative to thresholds obtained using Telephonics TDH-39P supra-aural earphones. Design Thresholds were obtained via each transducer and stimulus condition six times within a 10-day period. Study Sample Forty-nine adults were selected from a prior study to represent low, moderate, and high threshold reliability. Results The results suggested that (1) only small adjustments were needed to reach equivalent TDH-39P thresholds, (2) pure-tone thresholds obtained with HDA200 circumaural earphones had reliability equal to or better than those obtained using TDH-39P earphones, (3) the reliability of noise-band thresholds improved with broader stimulus bandwidth and was either equal to or better than pure-tone thresholds, and (4) frequency-specificity declined with stimulus bandwidths greater than one Equivalent Rectangular Band, which could complicate early detection of hearing changes that occur within a narrow frequency range. Conclusions These data suggest that circumaural earphones such as the HDA200 headphones provide better reliability for audiometric testing as compared to the TDH-39P earphones. These data support the use of noise bands, preferably ERB noises, as stimuli for audiometric monitoring.

In situ Hearing Tests for the Purpose of a Self-Fit Hearing Aid

“…The standard deviations at 750, 1,500, and 3,000 Hz were 3.7, 5.2, and 4.3 dB, respectively. This is in close agreement with the standard deviations reported for clinical audiometry [Flamme et al, 2015]. The correlation coefficients were 0.91, 0.76, and 0.87, respectively.…”

In-situ Audiometry Compared to Conventional Audiometry for Hearing Aid Fitting

“…In our study, the mean interparticipant differences between conventional and in-situ audiometry were within ± 5 dB for all tested hearing aids across frequencies of 250–6000 Hz, which are crucial frequencies for speech. This 5 dB error is clinically acceptable, consistent with the expected measurement error using the Hughson-Westlake 5-up 10-down procedure, and is in agreement with deviations reported for clinical audiometry ( Flamme et al, 2015 ).…”

A influência do tipo de transdutor acústico na audiometria tonal liminar

“…Given the possibility of using supra-aural, insert, or circumaural earphones to obtain air-conduction hearing thresholds at 250 to 8000 Hz, we must compare them and verify the users' satisfaction with them. We commonly find studies reporting the difference in hearing thresholds obtained with supra-aural and insert earphones in different populations (5,6,(8)(9)(10)(11)(12) , whereas comparisons with circumaural earphones are still scarce (6,17) .…”