User-Operated Audiometry Project (UAud) - Introducing an Automated User-Operated System for Audiometric Testing Into Everyday Clinic Practice

Development and evaluation of a novel user-operated slider-based audiometry method

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a novel user-operated audiometry method allowing users full control in determining their pure-tone hearing thresholds.

DESIGN

Comparative study. Participants were recruited from a hearing clinic after undergoing manual audiometry (six frequencies). They then performed test-retests of a new test (slider audiometry, eight frequencies) and completed the System Usability Scale questionnaire.

STUDY SAMPLE

37 adult participants, including 30 hearing-impaired and seven normal-hearing individuals.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) threshold differences for octave frequencies between 250 to 2000 Hz between manual and slider audiometry ranged from -7.8 (6.6) to -5.7 (6.5) dB and were significant. For 4000 and 8000 Hz mean differences were -0.3 (8.4) and 0.0 (9.7) dB and insignificant. Standard deviations ranged from 6.5 to 9.7 dB across six tested frequencies. Slider test-retest mean threshold differences ranged from -1.4 (4.7) to 0.3 (6.0) dB across eight tested frequencies, with standard deviations ranging from 4.1 to 8.5 dB. The average usability score for the slider audiometry was 88.3.

CONCLUSION

When compared to manual audiometry, the slider audiometry demonstrated validity at 4000 and 8000 Hz but found significantly lower thresholds for octave frequencies between 250 to 2000 Hz. Test-retests of the new method revealed small mean differences and acceptable SDs.

Prediction of pure tone thresholds using the speech reception threshold and age in elderly individuals with hearing loss

OBJECTIVE

Early detection and effective management of hearing loss constitute the key to improving the quality of life of individuals with hearing loss. However, in standardized pure tone audiometry, it is sometimes difficult for elderly patients to understand and follow all instructions. Audiologists also require time, expertise, and patience to ensure that an elderly can identify the faintest levels of stimuli during a hearing test. Therefore, this study aimed to devise and validate a formula to predict the pure tone threshold at each frequency across 0.5-4 kHz (PTTs) using speech reception threshold.

METHODS

The 1226 audiograms of hearing-impaired individuals aged 60-90 years were reviewed. The random sample function randomly assigned 613 participants to the training and testing sets each. A linear model was created to predict the PTT value at each frequency based on variables significant at all frequencies across 0.5-4 kHz. The adjusted-R2 value was considered to indicate the performance of the predictive model. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to describe the relationship between the actual and predicted PTT at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz among the testing set to measure the performance of the proposed model.

RESULTS

The predictive model was devised using variables based on the speech recognition threshold (SRT) after adjusting with age in the training set. The overall prediction accuracy demonstrated a higher adjusted-R2 ranging from 0.74 to 0.89 at frequencies of 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz, whereas a low percentage of explained variance was observed at 4 kHz (adjusted-R2 = 0.41). This predictive model can serve as an adjunctive clinical tool for guiding determination of the PTTs. Moreover, the predicted PTTs can be applied in the hearing aid programming software to set appropriate hearing aid gain using standard prescriptive formulas.

User-operated audiometry - an evaluation of expert vs. non-expert headphone placement

OBJECTIVE

User-operated audiometry faces multiple barriers. One of these is the concern of audiologists that patients (non-experts) placing headphones by themselves results in invalid hearing thresholds due to greater placement variability.

DESIGN

Comparative study. Participants took the AMTAS pure-tone air-conduction audiometry under two different conditions, expert and non-expert circumaural headphone placement for five frequencies within the range 250-8000 Hz. Questionnaires were also used to gain insight into the usability of the user-operated audiometry system - as well as the participants' perceived handling of the audiometry headphones.

STUDY SAMPLE

Thirty participants (mean age 67.5 years).

RESULTS

No statistically significant mean differences in hearing thresholds between the expert and non-expert conditions were found. The mean system usability scale score was 84.5. Handling the headphones was also rated as being easy (30%) or very easy (60%) by most non-experts.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of the study is that non-experts can be trusted to properly equip a pair of circumaural audiometry headphones for the correct conduction of pure-tone audiometry with only a few digital instructions.

Ambient Noise in Candidate Rooms for User-Operated Audiometry

Hearing loss is a widespread problem while treatment is not always accessible, mainly because of the limited availability of hearing care professionals and clinics. In this work, part of the User-Operated Audiometry project, we investigate the acoustic environment of inexpensive non-sound-treated rooms that could be used for unsupervised audiometric testing. Measurements of 10 min of ambient noise were taken from 20 non-sound-treated rooms in libraries and private and public clinics, nine of which were measured twice. Ambient noise was compared against two traditional audiometric sound-treated rooms and Maximum Permissible Ambient noise levels by ISO 8231-1, while factoring for the attenuation by the DD450 circumaural headphones provided. In most non-sound-treated rooms, MPAs were violated only by transient sounds, while the floor-noise level was below MPAs. Non-sound-treated rooms' ambient noise levels presented with much larger fluctuations compared to sound-treated rooms. Almost all violations occurred at low to mid-low frequencies. Our results suggest that large-scale implementation of user-operated audiometry outside traditional audiometric rooms is possible, at least under some realizable conditions. Circumaural headphones' attenuation is probably a necessary condition for all cases. Depending on the room, an online system making decisions based on ambient noise might also be included in combination with active attenuation.

Comparison of hearing aid fitting effectiveness with audiograms from either user-operated or traditional audiometry in a clinical setting: a study protocol for a blinded non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

There is a worldwide need to enhance the capacity of audiometry testing. The objective of this study is to compare the User-operated Audiometry (UAud) system with traditional audiometry in a clinical setting, by investigating if hearing aid effectiveness based on UAud is non-inferior to hearing aid effectiveness based on traditional audiometry, and whether thresholds obtained with the user-operated version of the Audible Contrast Threshold (ACT) test correlates to traditional measures of speech intelligibility.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The design will be a blinded non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. 250 adults referred for hearing aid treatment will be enrolled in the study. Study participants will be tested using both traditional audiometry as well as the UAud system and they will answer the questionnaire Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ12) at baseline. Participants will be randomly divided to receive hearing aids fitted based on either UAud or traditional audiometry. Three months after participants have started using their hearing aids, they will undergo a hearing in noise test with hearing aids to measure their speech-in-noise performance and answer the following questionnaires: SSQ12, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids. The primary outcome is a comparison of the change in SSQ12 scores from baseline to follow-up between the two groups. Participants will undergo the user-operated ACT test of spectro-temporal modulation sensitivity as part of the UAud system. The ACT results will be compared with measures of speech intelligibility from the traditional audiometry session and follow-up measurements.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The project was evaluated by the Research Ethics Committee of Southern Denmark and judged not to need approval. The findings will be submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05043207.

Clinical comparison of two automated audiometry procedures

Objective

Automated pure-tone audiometry has been shown to provide similar hearing threshold estimates to conventional audiometry, but lower correlations were reported at high and low frequencies in audiometric tests than those of manual tests, while the correlations were better in the middle frequencies. In this paper, we used the same equipment and different test procedures for automated testing, and compared the results with manual test results.

Design

One hundred subjects aged 18–36 years were randomly divided into two groups to perform air-conduction pure-tone audiometry (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 kHz) using the ascending and shortened ascending protocols built-in to the automated audiometer, respectively. Recorded testing time, the total number of responses and the subject’s preference tests were compared with those of manual tests.

Results

Significant difference was found at 250 Hz regarding the distribution of the absolute difference between the two automated and the manual thresholds. The testing time spend in the ascending method (9.8 ± 1.4 min, mean ± SD) was significantly longer than in the shorted ascending method (5.8 ± 0.9 min). The total numbers of responses of the ascending method (90.5 ± 10.8 times) and shorted ascending method (62.0 ± 11.4 times) were significantly different. Finally, no significant difference was found in preferences between automated and manual procedures.

Conclusion

The shorted ascending method can save lots of testing time. The difference between the two automated thresholds at 250 Hz is caused by the different test procedures, and the difference at 8,000 Hz between the automated test and the manual test can be due to the transducer types and allowable differences in calibration.