OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the reliability, accuracy, and time efficiency of automated hearing assessment using a computer-based telemedicine-compliant audiometer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty normal-hearing subjects and eight hearing-impaired subjects were tested with pure-tone air conduction audiometry (125-8,000 Hz) in a manual and automated configuration in a counterbalanced manner. For the normal-hearing group each test was repeated to determine test-retest reliability and recording time, and preference for threshold-seeking method (manual vs. automated) was documented. RESULTS: Test-retest thresholds were not significantly different for manual and automated testing. Manual audiometry test-retest correspondence was 5 dB or less in 88% of thresholds compared to 91% for automated audiometry. Thresholds for automated audiometry did not differ significantly from manual audiometry with 87% of thresholds in the normal-hearing group and 97% in the hearing-impaired group, corresponding within 5 dB or less of each other. The largest overall average absolute difference across frequencies was 3.6 +/- 3.9 dB for the normal-hearing group and 3.3 +/- 2.4 for the hearing-impaired group. Both techniques were equally time efficient in the normal-hearing population, and 63% of subjects preferred the automated threshold-seeking method. CONCLUSIONS: Automated audiometry provides reliable, accurate, and time-efficient hearing assessments for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired adults. Combined with an asynchronous telehealth model it holds significant potential for reaching underserved areas where hearing health professionals are unavailable.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the reliability, accuracy, and time efficiency of automated hearing assessment using a computer-based telemedicine-compliant audiometer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty normal-hearing subjects and eight hearing-impaired subjects were tested with pure-tone air conduction audiometry (125-8,000 Hz) in a manual and automated configuration in a counterbalanced manner. For the normal-hearing group each test was repeated to determine test-retest reliability and recording time, and preference for threshold-seeking method (manual vs. automated) was documented. RESULTS: Test-retest thresholds were not significantly different for manual and automated testing. Manual audiometry test-retest correspondence was 5 dB or less in 88% of thresholds compared to 91% for automated audiometry. Thresholds for automated audiometry did not differ significantly from manual audiometry with 87% of thresholds in the normal-hearing group and 97% in the hearing-impaired group, corresponding within 5 dB or less of each other. The largest overall average absolute difference across frequencies was 3.6 +/- 3.9 dB for the normal-hearing group and 3.3 +/- 2.4 for the hearing-impaired group. Both techniques were equally time efficient in the normal-hearing population, and 63% of subjects preferred the automated threshold-seeking method. CONCLUSIONS: Automated audiometry provides reliable, accurate, and time-efficient hearing assessments for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired adults. Combined with an asynchronous telehealth model it holds significant potential for reaching underserved areas where hearing health professionals are unavailable.
Authors: Odile H Clavier; James A Norris; David W Hinckley; William Hal Martin; Shi Yuan Lee; Sigfrid D Soli; Douglas S Brungart; Jaclyn R Schurman; Erik Larsen; Golbarg Mehraei; Tera M Quigley Journal: J Acoust Soc Am Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 2.482
Authors: Danique E Paping; Marc van der Schroef; Hiske W Helleman; André Goedegebure; Rob J Baatenburg de Jong; Jantien L Vroegop Journal: Noise Health Date: 2022 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 1.293
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
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