Validation of a Self-Administered Audiometry Application: An Equivalence Study

Laryngoscope

Volumn 126, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 2382-2388

  Whitton, Jonathon P ^a,c   Hancock, Kenneth E ^a,b   Shannon, Jeffrey M ^d   Polley, Daniel B ^a,b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS EYE AND EAR INFIRMARY   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c HARVARD MIT DIVISION OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^d Hudson Valley Audiology Center   (United States)

Author keywords

audiology; audiometry; auditory processing; automation; diagnostics; mobile health; speech; Telehealth

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AIR CONDUCTION; ARTICLE; AUDIOGRAPHY; AUDIOLOGIST; AUDIOMETER; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATION; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HOME DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HUMAN; MALE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; RELIABILITY; SOFTWARE; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 84990199045     PISSN: 0023852X     EISSN: 15314995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25988     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Lin FR, Niparko JK, Ferrucci L. Hearing loss prevalence in the United States. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1851–1852.
2. Windmill IM, Freeman BA. Demand for audiology services: 30-yr projections and impact on academic programs. J Am Acad Audiol 2013;24:407–416.
3. Margolis RH, Morgan DE. Automated pure-tone audiometry: an analysis of capacity, need, and benefit. Am J Audiol 2008;17:109–113.
4. WHO. The global burden of disease: 2004 update. Geneva, Switzerlnd: World Health Organization; 2008.
5. Jerger J, Jerger S. Psychoacoustic comparison of cochlear and viiith nerve disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1967;10:659–688.
6. Jerger J, Jerger S. Diagnostic significance of PB word functions. Arch Otolaryngol 1971;93:573–580.
7. Ruggles D, Bharadwaj H, Shinn-Cunningham BG. Why middle-aged listeners have trouble hearing in everyday settings. Curr Biol 2012;22:1417–1422.
8. Ruggles D, Bharadwaj H, Shinn-Cunningham BG. Normal hearing is not enough to guarantee robust encoding of suprathreshold features important in everyday communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011;108:15516–15521.
9. Strelcyk O, Dau T. Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;125:3328–3345.
10. Bharadwaj HM, Masud S, Mehraei G, Verhulst S, Shinn-Cunningham BG. Individual differences reveal correlates of hidden hearing deficits. J Neurosci 2015;35:2161–2172.
11. Narne VK. Temporal processing and speech perception in noise by listeners with auditory neuropathy. PLoS One 2013;8:e55995.
12. Musiek, FE, Baran, JA, Bellis, TJ, et al. Diagnosis, Treatment and Management of Children and Adults With Central Auditory Processing Disorder. Reston, VA: American Academy of Audiology; 2010.
13. American Speech Language and Hearing Association. (Central) auditory processing disorders [Technical Report]. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2005.
14. Whitton JP, Polley DB. Evaluating the perceptual and pathophysiological consequences of auditory deprivation in early postnatal life: a comparison of basic and clinical studies. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2011;12:535–547.
15. Mahomed F, Swanepoel DW, Eikelboom RH, Soer M. Validity of automated threshold audiometry: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ear Hear 2013;34:745–752.
16. Rudmose W. Automatic audiometry. In: Jerger J, ed. Modern Developments in Audiology. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1963:30–75.
17. Smith A, McGeeney, K, Duggan, M, Rainie, L, Keeter, S. The smartphone difference. Washington DC: Pew Research Center; 2015. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/. Accessed October 15, 2015.
18. Wike R, Simmons K, Poushter J, et al. Emerging nations embrace internet, mobile technology. Washington DC: Pew Research Center; 2014. Available at: http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/02/13/emerging-nations-embrace-internet-mobile-technology/. Accessed October 15, 2015.
19. Abu-Ghanem S, Handzel O, Ness L, Ben-Artzi-Blima M, Fait-Ghelbendorf K, Himmelfarb M. Smartphone-based audiometric test for screening hearing loss in the elderly. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:333–339. doi: 10.1007/s00405-015-3533-9. Epub 2015.
20. Bexelius C, Honeth L, Ekman A, et al. Evaluation of an internet-based hearing test—comparison with established methods for detection of hearing loss. J Med Internet Res 2008;10:e32.
21. Smits C, Kapteyn T, Houtgast T. Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol 2004;43:15:28.
22. Smits C, Merkus P, Houtgast T. How we do it: the Dutch functional hearing-screening tests by telephone and internet. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;31:436–440.
23. Watson CS, Kidd GR, Miller JD, Smits C, Humes LE. Telephone screening tests for functionally impaired hearing: current use in seven countries and development of a US version. J Am Acad Audiol 2012;23:757–767.
24. Jansen S, Luts H, Wagener KC, Frachet B, Wouters J. The French digit triplet test: a hearing screening tool for speech intelligibility in noise. Int J Audiol 2010;49:378–387.
25. Meyer C, Hickson L, Khan A, Hartley D, Dillon H, Seymour J. Investigation of the actions taken by adults who failed a telephone-based hearing screen. Ear Hear 2011;32:720–731.
26. Vlaming MSMG, Mackinnon RC, Jansen M, Moore DR. Automated screening for high-frequency hearing loss. Ear Hear 2014;35:667–679.
27. Walker E, Nowacki AS. Understanding equivalence and noninferiority testing. J Gen Intern Med 2011;26:192–196.
28. Carhart R, Jerger J. A preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord 1959;24:330–345.
29. Turner RG. Masking redux. I: an optimized masking method. J Am Acad Audiol 2004;15:17–28.
30. Killion MC, Wilber LA, Gudmundsen GI. Insert earphones for more interaural attenuation. Hear Instr 1985;36:1–2.
31. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 1971;49:467–477.
32. Wilson RH, Burks CA. Use of 35 words for evaluation of hearing loss in signal-to-babble ratio: a clinic protocol. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005;42:839–852.
33. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 1910.95 CFR Occupational Noise Exposure: Hearing Conservation Amendment (Final Rule) Federal Register. 1983:9738–9785.
34. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Compendium of materials for noise control. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH; 1980:80–116.
35. Eikelboom R, Swanepoel DW, Motakef S, Upson G. Clinical validation of the AMTAS automated audiometer. Int J Audiol 2013;52:342–349.
36. Lemkens N, Vermeire K, Brokx JPL, Fransen E, Van Camp G, Van De Heyning PH. Interpretation of pure-tone thresholds in sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL): a review of measurement variability and age-specific references. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 2002;56:341–352.
37. American National Standards Institute. American National Standard Specification for Audiometers. (ANSI S3.6-2010). New York, NY: ANSI; 2010.
38. Landry JA, Green WB. Pure-tone audiometric threshold test-retest variability in young and elderly adults. Can J Speech Lang Pathol and Audiol 1999;23:74–80.
39. Smith A. Older adults and technology use. Washington DC: Pew Research Center; 2014. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/04/03/older-adults-and-technology-use/. Accessed October 15, 2015.
40. Foulad A, Bui P, Djalilian H. Automated audiometry using Apple IOS-based application technology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;149:700–706.
41. Bromwich MA, Parsa V, Lanthier N, Yoo J, Parnes LS. Active noise reduction audiometry: a prospective analysis of a new approach to noise management in audiometric testing. Laryngoscope 2008;118:104–109.
42. Maclennan-Smith F, Swanepoel DW, Hall JW. Validity of diagnostic pure-tone audiometry without a sound-treated environment in older adults. Int J Audiol 2013;52:66–73.
43. CellScope company website. CellScope Inc. Available at: https://www.cellscope.com/. Accessed April 9, 2015.
44. Kupershmidt H, Blanka L, inventors. Indication of quality for placement of bone conduction transducers. US patent 20140363002 A1. June 9, 2014.
45. Heiman A, Haiut M, Yehuday U. Equalization and power control of bone conduction elements. US patent 20140363033 A1. Dec 30, 2013.
46. Frank T, Williams DL. Effects of background noise on earphone thresholds. J Am Acad Audiol 1993;4:201–212.
47. Hawkins JE, Stevens SS. The masking of pure tones and of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1950;22:6–13.
48. Gurgel RK, Jackler RK, Dobie RA, Popelka GR. A new standardized format for reporting hearing outcome in clinical trials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147:803–807.