Literature DB >> 21417674

AMTAS(®): automated method for testing auditory sensitivity: II. air conduction audiograms in children and adults.

Robert H Margolis1, Robert Frisina, Joseph P Walton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate an automated pure-tone audiometric procedure (AMTAS(®)) for 4-8 year-old children, and a quality assessment method (QUALIND(®)) that predicts the accuracy of the test.
DESIGN: Children were tested with AMTAS and conventional manual air-conduction audiometry. A group of adults was tested for comparison. STUDY SAMPLE: Eighty-one 4-8 year-old children and 15 adults. Most had normal hearing.
RESULTS: For most subjects (93% of adults and 91% of children) differences between AMTAS and manual thresholds were similar to differences that occur when two experienced audiologists test the same subjects. QUALIND detected the inaccurate audiograms with a sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 91%. When inaccurate audiograms identified by QUALIND are excluded, the accuracy of AMTAS is similar to the accuracy of manual audiometry.
CONCLUSIONS: AMTAS produces accurate air-conduction audiograms in a high proportion of 4-8 year-old children and adults. QUALIND successfully identified most inaccurate AMTAS audiograms. The method can decrease the cost and increase efficiency and accessibility of hearing testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21417674     DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2011.553206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Audiol        ISSN: 1499-2027            Impact factor:   2.117


  10 in total

1.  Threshold measurements by self-fitting hearing aids: feasibility and challenges.

Authors:  Gitte Keidser; Harvey Dillon; Dan Zhou; Lyndal Carter
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2012-03-07

2.  Distribution characteristics of normal pure-tone thresholds.

Authors:  Robert H Margolis; Richard H Wilson; Gerald R Popelka; Robert H Eikelboom; De Wet Swanepoel; George L Saly
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Going wireless and booth-less for hearing testing in industry.

Authors:  Deanna K Meinke; Jesse A Norris; Brendan P Flynn; Odile H Clavier
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 2.117

4.  Distribution Characteristics of Air-Bone Gaps: Evidence of Bias in Manual Audiometry.

Authors:  Robert H Margolis; Richard H Wilson; Gerald R Popelka; Robert H Eikelboom; De Wet Swanepoel; George L Saly
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Comparing the Accuracy and Speed of Manual and Tracking Methods of Measuring Hearing Thresholds.

Authors:  Gayla L Poling; Theresa J Kunnel; Sumitrajit Dhar
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  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

Review 7.  Tele-Audiology: Current State and Future Directions.

Authors:  Kristen L D'Onofrio; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Front Digit Health       Date:  2022-01-10

Review 8.  Digital Approaches to Automated and Machine Learning Assessments of Hearing: Scoping Review.

Authors:  Jan-Willem Wasmann; Leontien Pragt; Robert Eikelboom; De Wet Swanepoel
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  The new age of play audiometry: prospective validation testing of an iPad-based play audiometer.

Authors:  Jeffrey Yeung; Hedyeh Javidnia; Sophie Heley; Yves Beauregard; Sandra Champagne; Matthew Bromwich
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2013-03-11

Review 10.  Automated Audiometry: A Review of the Implementation and Evaluation Methods.

Authors:  Hassan Shojaeemend; Haleh Ayatollahi
Journal:  Healthc Inform Res       Date:  2018-10-31
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.