DESIGN: Part 1 involved electroacoustic measurement and biological calibration of a laptop-earphone pair used for the computer-based audiometry (CBA). Part 2 compared CBA thresholds obtained without a sound booth with those measured using the gold-standard clinical audiometry.
STUDY SAMPLE: 17 young normal-hearing volunteers (Part 1) and 43 normal and hearing loss subjects (Part 2) recruited from an audiology clinic via convenience sampling.
RESULTS: The transducer-device combination produced outputs suitable for measuring thresholds down to 0 dB HL. Threshold pairs obtained from the CBA and clinical audiometry were highly correlated (Spearman's correlation coefficient, ρ = 0.92, p 25 dB HL.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a computer-based audiometer application with consumer insert phone-earmuff combination can offer a cost-effective solution for boothless screening audiometry.
DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study.
STUDY SAMPLE: 1068 subjects issued with HAs at a tertiary hospital from 2001 to 2013.
RESULTS: Half of the subjects presented with more severe (>55 dB) hearing loss (HL) in their better ear. In multivariable analysis, older age, Malay ethnicity, conductive and mixed HL, and combination type of HL were associated with more severe HL at first presentation. Over 70% of subjects were older than 65 years. Worse pure tone audiometry (PTA) thresholds of the better ear, gradual onset and sensorineural HL were associated with older age presentation. For unilaterally fitted subjects, PTA thresholds were the only determinant of having the better ear aided. Better PTA thresholds, younger age and sensorineural HL were associated with choosing in ear compared to behind the ear HAs. Younger age and worse PTA of the better ear were associated with ≥4 h of daily HA usage.
CONCLUSIONS: Age, ethnicity and type of HL were important determinants for more severe HL at first HA fitting. Older patients and those with better hearing were less likely to use their HAs regularly.
DESIGN AND STUDY SAMPLE: Study 1 compared the FS measure obtained with MOL and 2IFC procedure at two centre frequencies (CFs) (1 and 4 kHz) in 21 normal-hearing listeners. Study 2 determined the FS measure using MOL at five CFs (0.5-8 kHz) in 32 normal-hearing and nine sensorineural hearing loss listeners and compared them with their thresholds in quiet.
RESULTS: FS measurements with MOL and 2IFC methods were highly correlated and had statistically comparable intra-subject test-retest reliability. FS measures determined with MOL were reduced in the hearing-impaired compared to normal-hearing listeners at the CF corresponding to their hearing loss. Linear regression analysis showed significant relationship between FS deterioration and quiet threshold loss (p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this repeated-measures study, 40 Malaysian adults (aged 19-26 years) with normal hearing bilaterally (based on PTA results) were enrolled. They then underwent the SAL test based on the recommended protocol by Jerger and Tillman (1960). The SAL normative data for each ear were obtained by calculating the differences between air conduction (AC) thresholds in quiet and AC thresholds in noise by means of insert earphone, B71 and B81 bone vibrators.
RESULTS: The SAL normative values were comparable between the ears (p > 0.05), and the data were pooled for subsequent analyses (n = 80 ears). Relative to B81 bone transducer, B71 bone vibrator produced statistically higher SAL normative data at all frequencies (p < 0.05). The SAL normative values established by the present study were statistically lower than those of the previous study (that utilised headphones) at most of frequencies tested (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The SAL normative data produced by the two bone vibrators were significantly different. The SAL normative values were also affected by the type of earphone used. While conducting the SAL test on Malaysian patients, the information provided by this study can be useful to guide the respective clinicians in choosing the appropriate normative data.
Method: Quasi-experimental and repeated-measures study designs were used in this study. Twenty-six adults with normal hearing (17 females, 9 males) participated. ABRs were acquired from the study participants at 3 intensity levels (80, 60, and 40 dB nHL), 3 frequencies (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz), 2 electrode montages (ipsilateral and vertical), and 2 stimuli (NB LS CE-Chirp and tone-burst) using 2 stopping criteria (fixed averages at 4,000 sweeps and F test at multiple points = 3.1).
Results: Wave V amplitudes were only 19%-26% larger for the vertical recordings than the ipsilateral recordings in both the ABRs obtained from the NB LS CE-Chirp and tone-burst stimuli. The mean differences in the F test at multiple points values and the residual noise levels between the ABRs obtained from the vertical and ipsilateral montages were statistically not significant. In addition, the ABR elicited from the NB LS CE-Chirp was significantly larger (up to 69%) than those from the tone-burst, except at the lower intensity level.
Conclusion: Both the ipsilateral and vertical montages can be used to record ABR to the NB LS CE-Chirp because of the small enhancement in the wave V amplitude provided by the vertical montage.