Literature DB >> 26514954

Pure-tone audiometry outside a sound booth using earphone attentuation, integrated noise monitoring, and automation.

De Wet Swanepoel1,2,3,4, Cornelia Matthysen1, Robert H Eikelboom1,2,3, Jackie L Clark4, James W Hall1,5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Accessibility of audiometry is hindered by the cost of sound booths and shortage of hearing health personnel. This study investigated the validity of an automated mobile diagnostic audiometer with increased attenuation and real-time noise monitoring for clinical testing outside a sound booth.
DESIGN: Attenuation characteristics and reference ambient noise levels for the computer-based audiometer (KUDUwave) was evaluated alongside the validity of environmental noise monitoring. Clinical validity was determined by comparing air- and bone-conduction thresholds obtained inside and outside the sound booth (23 subjects). STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-three normal-hearing subjects (age range, 20-75 years; average age 35.5) and a sub group of 11 subjects to establish test-retest reliability.
RESULTS: Improved passive attenuation and valid environmental noise monitoring was demonstrated. Clinically, air-conduction thresholds inside and outside the sound booth, corresponded within 5 dB or less > 90% of instances (mean absolute difference 3.3 ± 3.2 SD). Bone conduction thresholds corresponded within 5 dB or less in 80% of comparisons between test environments, with a mean absolute difference of 4.6 dB (3.7 SD). Threshold differences were not statistically significant. Mean absolute test-retest differences outside the sound booth was similar to those in the booth.
CONCLUSION: Diagnostic pure-tone audiometry outside a sound booth, using automated testing, improved passive attenuation, and real-time environmental noise monitoring demonstrated reliable hearing assessments.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Audiometry; attenuation; automated audiometry; diagnostic hearing assessment; maximum permissible ambient noise levels; noise monitoring; occupational hearing assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26514954     DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1072647

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


  9 in total

1.  Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for the Wireless Automated Hearing Test System.

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

Review 2.  eHealth Technologies Enable more Accessible Hearing Care.

Authors:  De Wet Swanepoel
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2020-04-07

Review 3.  South African hearing conservation programmes in the context of tele-audiology: A scoping review.

Authors:  Katijah Khoza-Shangase; Nomfundo Moroe
Journal:  S Afr J Commun Disord       Date:  2020-03-03

4.  Adult validation of a self-administered tablet audiometer.

Authors:  Mark Bastianelli; Amy E Mark; Arran McAfee; David Schramm; Renée Lefrançois; Matthew Bromwich
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2019-11-07

Review 5.  Telemedicine in Audiology. Best practice recommendations from the French Society of Audiology (SFA) and the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (SFORL).

Authors:  H Thai-Van; D Bakhos; D Bouccara; N Loundon; M Marx; T Mom; I Mosnier; S Roman; C Villerabel; C Vincent; F Venail
Journal:  Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 2.665

Review 6.  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

7.  Hypertension Associated With Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Among Hypertensive Adults at a Tertiary Hospital in South Africa.

Authors:  Hlologelo Ramatsoma; Sean Mark Patrick
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 4.003

8.  Patient perceptions of a remote assessment pathway in otology: a qualitative descriptive analysis.

Authors:  Christopher Metcalfe; Colin Leonard; Jameel Muzaffar; Christopher Coulson
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 3.236

Review 9.  Audiometric Tests without Booths.

Authors:  Alberto Behar
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 3.390

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.