Dataset Information

Evaluation of Accuracy and Reliability of a Mobile Screening Audiometer in Normal Hearing Adults.

ABSTRACT: Quantifying hearing thresholds via mobile self-assessment audiometric applications has been demonstrated repeatedly with heterogenous results regarding the accuracy. One important limitation of several of these applications has been the lack of appropriate calibration of their core technical components (sound generator and headphones). The current study aimed at evaluating accuracy and reliability of a calibrated application (app) for pure-tone screening audiometry by self-assessment on a tablet computer: Audimatch app installed on Apple iPad 4 in combination with Sennheiser HDA-280 headphones. In a repeated-measures design audiometric thresholds collected by the app were compared to those obtained by standardized automated audiometry and additionally test-retest reliability was evaluated. Sixty-eight participants aged 19-65 years with normal hearing were tested in a sound-attenuating booth. An equivalence test revealed highly similar hearing thresholds for the app compared with standardized automated audiometry. A test-retest reliability analysis within each method showed a high correlation coefficient for the app (Spearman rank correlation: rho = 0.829) and for the automated audiometer (rho = 0.792). The results imply that the self-assessment of audiometric thresholds via a calibrated mobile device represents a valid and reliable alternative for stationary assessment of hearing loss thresholds, supporting the potential usability within the area of occupational health care.

SUBMITTER: Colsman A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7201107 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of Accuracy and Reliability of a Mobile Screening Audiometer in Normal Hearing Adults.

Colsman Angela A Supp Gernot G GG Neumann Joachim J Schneider Till R TR

Frontiers in psychology 20200429

Quantifying hearing thresholds via mobile self-assessment audiometric applications has been demonstrated repeatedly with heterogenous results regarding the accuracy. One important limitation of several of these applications has been the lack of appropriate calibration of their core technical components (sound generator and headphones). The current study aimed at evaluating accuracy and reliability of a calibrated application (app) for pure-tone screening audiometry by self-assessment on a tablet ...[more]

PMID: 32411050

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHearing impairment is the most frequent sensory deficit in humans, affecting more than 360 million people worldwide. In fact, hearing impairment is not merely a health problem, but it also has a great impact on the educational performance, economic income, and quality of life. Hearing impairment is therefore an important social concern.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of self-perception, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening (HHIE-S) questionnaire, free-field voice test, and smartphone-based audiometry as tests for screening moderate hearing impairment in older adults in China.MethodsIn this study, 41 patients were recruited through a single otology practice. All patients were older than 65 years. Patients with otorrhea and cognitive impairment were excluded. Moderate hearing impairment was defined as mean hearing thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz >40 dB hearing loss (pure-tone average > 40 dB hearing loss). All patients completed 5 hearing tests, namely, the self-perception test, HHIE-S questionnaire test, free-field voice test, smartphone-based audiometry test, and standard pure-tone audiometry by the same audiologist. We compared the results of these tests to the standard audiogram in the better-hearing ear.ResultsThe sensitivity and the specificity of the self-perception test were 0.58 (95% CI 0.29-0.84) and 0.34 (95% CI 0.19-0.54), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the HHIE-S questionnaire test were 0.67 (95% CI 0.35-0.89) and 0.31 (95% CI 0.316-0.51), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the free-field voice test were 0.83 (95% CI 0.51-0.97) and 0.41 (95% CI 0.24-0.61), respectively. The sensitivity and the specificity of the smartphone-based audiometry test were 0.92 (95% CI 0.60-0.99) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.56-0.89), respectively. Smartphone-based audiometry correctly diagnosed the presence of hearing loss with high sensitivity and high specificity.ConclusionsSmartphone-based audiometry may be a dependable screening test to rule out moderate hearing impairment in the older population.

Project description:ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to identify the effects of auditory deprivation (age-related hearing loss) and auditory stimulation (history of hearing aid use) on the neural registration of sound across two stimulus presentation conditions: (1) equal sound pressure level and (2) equal sensation level.DesignWe used a between-groups design, involving three groups of 14 older adults (n = 42; 62 to 84 years): (1) clinically defined normal hearing (≤25 dB from 250 to 8000 Hz, bilaterally), (2) bilateral mild-moderate/moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss who have never used hearing aids, and (3) bilateral mild-moderate/moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss who have worn bilateral hearing aids for at least the past 2 years.ResultsThere were significant delays in the auditory P1-N1-P2 complex in older adults with hearing loss compared with their normal hearing peers when using equal sound pressure levels for all participants. However, when the degree and configuration of hearing loss were accounted for through the presentation of equal sensation level stimuli, no latency delays were observed. These results suggest that stimulus audibility modulates P1-N1-P2 morphology and should be controlled for when defining deprivation and stimulus-related neuroplasticity in people with hearing loss. Moreover, a history of auditory stimulation, in the form of hearing aid use, does not appreciably alter the neural registration of unaided auditory evoked brain activity when quantified by the P1-N1-P2.ConclusionsWhen comparing auditory cortical responses in older adults with and without hearing loss, stimulus audibility, and not hearing loss-related neurophysiological changes, results in delayed response latency for those with age-related hearing loss. Future studies should carefully consider stimulus presentation levels when drawing conclusions about deprivation- and stimulation-related neuroplasticity. Additionally, auditory stimulation, in the form of a history of hearing aid use, does not significantly affect the neural registration of sound when quantified using the P1-N1-P2-evoked response.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of Accuracy and Reliability of a Mobile Screening Audiometer in Normal Hearing Adults.

Publications

Evaluation of Accuracy and Reliability of a Mobile Screening Audiometer in Normal Hearing Adults.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets