Literature DB >> 15064657

Test-retest reliability of pure-tone thresholds from 0.5 to 16 kHz using Sennheiser HDA 200 and Etymotic Research ER-2 earphones.

Nicolas Schmuziger1, Rudolf Probst, Jacek Smurzynski.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of the study were: (1) To evaluate the intrasession test-retest reliability of pure-tone thresholds measured in the 0.5-16 kHz frequency range for a group of otologically healthy subjects using Sennheiser HDA 200 circumaural and Etymotic Research ER-2 insert earphones and (2) to compare the data with existing criteria of significant threshold shifts related to ototoxicity and noise-induced hearing loss.
DESIGN: Auditory thresholds in the frequency range from 0.5 to 6 kHz and in the extended high-frequency range from 8 to 16 kHz were measured in one ear of 138 otologically healthy subjects (77 women, 61 men; mean age, 24.4 yr; range, 12-51 yr) using HDA 200 and ER-2 earphones. For each subject, measurements of thresholds were obtained twice for both transducers during the same test session. For analysis, the extended high-frequency range from 8 to 16 kHz was subdivided into 8 to 12.5 and 14 to 16 kHz ranges. Data for each frequency and frequency range were analyzed separately.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in repeatability for the two transducer types for all frequency ranges. The intrasession variability increased slightly, but significantly, as frequency increased with the greatest amount of variability in the 14 to 16 kHz range. Analyzing each individual frequency, variability was increased particularly at 16 kHz. At each individual frequency and for both transducer types, intrasession test-retest repeatability from 0.5 to 6 kHz and 8 to 16 kHz was within 10 dB for >99% and >94% of measurements, respectively. The results indicated a false-positive rate of <3% in reference to the criteria for cochleotoxicity for both transducer types. In reference to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standard Threshold Shift criteria for noise-induced hazards, the results showed a minor false-positive rate of <1% for the HDA 200.
CONCLUSION: Repeatability was similar for both transducer types. Intrasession test-retest repeatability from 0.5 to 12.5 kHz at each individual frequency including the frequency range susceptible to noise-induced hearing loss was excellent for both transducers. Repeatability was slightly, but significantly poorer in the frequency range from 14 to 16 kHz compared with the frequency ranges from 0.5 to 6 or 8 to 12.5 kHz. Measurements in the extended high-frequency range from 8 to 14 kHz, but not up to 16 kHz, may be recommended for monitoring purposes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15064657     DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000120361.87401.c8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  19 in total

1.  Temporary threshold shift after impulse-noise during video game play: laboratory data.

Authors:  C Spankovich; S K Griffiths; E Lobariñas; K E Morgenstein; S de la Calle; V Ledon; D Guercio; C G Le Prell
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  Short-term variability of pure-tone thresholds obtained with TDH-39P earphones.

Authors:  Gregory A Flamme; Mark R Stephenson; Kristy K Deiters; Amanda Hessenauer; Devon K VanGessel; Kyle Geda; Krista Wyllys; Kara D McGregor
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.117

Review 3.  Intra- and Intersubject Variability in Audiometric Measures and Loudness Judgments in Older Listeners with Normal Hearing.

Authors:  Monica L Hawley; LaGuinn P Sherlock; Craig Formby
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2017-02

4.  Behavioral hearing thresholds between 0.125 and 20 kHz using depth-compensated ear simulator calibration.

Authors:  Jungmee Lee; Sumitrajit Dhar; Rebekah Abel; Renee Banakis; Evan Grolley; Jungwha Lee; Steven Zecker; Jonathan Siegel
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Evaluation of audiometric threshold shift criteria for ototoxicity monitoring.

Authors:  Dawn Konrad-Martin; Kenneth E James; Jane S Gordon; Kelly M Reavis; David S Phillips; Gene W Bratt; Stephen A Fausti
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Association of Audiometric Age-Related Hearing Loss With Depressive Symptoms Among Hispanic Individuals.

Authors:  Justin S Golub; Katharine K Brewster; Adam M Brickman; Adam J Ciarleglio; Ana H Kim; José A Luchsinger; Bret R Rutherford
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 6.223

7.  Home Hearing Test: Within-Subjects Threshold Variability.

Authors:  Robert H Margolis; Gene Bratt; M Patrick Feeney; Mead C Killion; George L Saly
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Online Machine Learning Audiometry.

Authors:  Dennis L Barbour; Rebecca T Howard; Xinyu D Song; Nikki Metzger; Kiron A Sukesan; James C DiLorenzo; Braham R D Snyder; Jeff Y Chen; Eleanor A Degen; Jenna M Buchbinder; Katherine L Heisey
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Fast, Continuous Audiogram Estimation Using Machine Learning.

Authors:  Xinyu D Song; Brittany M Wallace; Jacob R Gardner; Noah M Ledbetter; Kilian Q Weinberger; Dennis L Barbour
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  AudioGene: predicting hearing loss genotypes from phenotypes to guide genetic screening.

Authors:  Kyle R Taylor; Adam P Deluca; A Eliot Shearer; Michael S Hildebrand; E Ann Black-Ziegelbein; V Nikhil Anand; Christina M Sloan; Robert W Eppsteiner; Todd E Scheetz; Patrick L M Huygen; Richard J H Smith; Terry A Braun; Thomas L Casavant
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 4.878

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.