Clinical comparison of two automated audiometry procedures

Hui Liu; Hui Liu; Bingqing Du; Bingqing Du; Bo Liu; Bo Liu; Xinxing Fu; Xinxing Fu; Xinxing Fu; Xinxing Fu; Yao Wang; Yao Wang

doi:10.3389/fnins.2022.1011016

Frontiers in Neuroscience (Oct 2022)

Clinical comparison of two automated audiometry procedures

Hui Liu,
Hui Liu,
Bingqing Du,
Bingqing Du,
Bo Liu,
Bo Liu,
Xinxing Fu,
Xinxing Fu,
Xinxing Fu,
Xinxing Fu,
Yao Wang,
Yao Wang

Affiliations

Hui Liu: Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
Hui Liu: Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing, China
Bingqing Du: Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
Bingqing Du: Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing, China
Bo Liu: Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
Bo Liu: Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing, China
Xinxing Fu: Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
Xinxing Fu: Beijing Institute of Otolaryngology, Beijing, China
Xinxing Fu: Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
Xinxing Fu: Ear Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, WA, Australia
Yao Wang: School of Life Sciences, Tiangong University, Tianjin, China
Yao Wang: School of Precision Instruments and Optoelectronics Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.1011016
Journal volume & issue: Vol. 16

Abstract

Read online

ObjectiveAutomated 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.DesignOne 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.ResultsSignificant 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Published in Frontiers in Neuroscience

ISSN: 1662-4548 (Print); 1662-453X (Online)
Publisher: Frontiers Media S.A.
Country of publisher: Switzerland
LCC subjects: Medicine: Internal medicine: Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry
Website: http://www.frontiersin.org/neuroscience

About the journal

Abstract

Keywords