METHODS: We searched 3 major databases, i.e., PubMed, Embase and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Journals@Ovid, for studies published up until 1May 2013 without language restrictions. All study designs were included in this review. The studies were identified and retrieved by two independent authors.
RESULTS: Of 118 titles scanned, 14 duplicates were removed, and a total of 13 abstracts from all three databases were identified for full-text retrieval. From the full text, eight articles met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. These articles showed acceptable quality based on our scoring system. Most of the studies indicated that temporary threshold shifts were much lower when subjects were exposed to a noise level of 85 dBA or lower.
CONCLUSIONS: There were more threshold shifts in subjects adopting 90 dBA compared with 85 dBA. These temporary threshold shifts may progress to permanent shifts over time. Action curtailing noise exposure among employees would be taken earlier on adoption of 85 dBA as the permissible exposure limit, and hence prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss may be reduced.
DESIGN: The MHINT-T and the MyHINT were presented in quiet and noise (front, right and left) conditions under headphones. Results for the two tests were compared with each other and with the norms for each test.
STUDY SAMPLE: Malaysian Chinese native speakers of Mandarin (N = 58), 18-31 years of age with normal hearing.
RESULTS: On average, subjects demonstrated poorer speech perception ability than the normative samples for these tests. Repeated measures ANOVA showed that speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were slightly poorer on the MHINT-T than on the MyHINT for all test conditions. However, normalized SRTs were poorer by 0.6 standard deviations for MyHINT as compared with MHINT-T.
CONCLUSIONS: MyHINT and MHINT-T can be used as norm-referenced speech perception measures for Mandarin-speaking Chinese in Malaysia.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eleven normal-hearing adults participated. The ABR test was repeated twice in the same clinical session and conducted again in another session. The ABR was acquired using both the click and LS CE-Chirp® stimuli at 4 presentation levels (80, 60, 40, and 20 dBnHL). Only the right ear was tested using the ipsilateral electrode montage. The reliability of the ABR findings (amplitudes and latencies) to the click and LS CE-Chirp® stimuli within the same clinical session and between the two clinical sessions was calculated using an intra-class correlation coefficient analysis (ICC).
RESULTS: The results showed a significant correlation of the ABR findings (amplitude and latencies) to both stimuli within the same session and between the clinical sessions. The ICC values ranged from moderate to excellent.
CONCLUSIONS: The ABR results from both the LS CE-Chirp® and click stimuli were consistent and reliable over the two clinical sessions suggesting that both stimuli can be used for neurological diagnoses with the same reliability.
METHODS: FS measures at 1 and 4 kHz center frequencies were obtained using a custom-made software in normal-hearing (NH), slight SNHL and mild-to-moderate SNHL subjects. For comparison, subjects were also assessed with the Malay Digit Triplet Test (DTT) and the shortened Malay Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) questionnaire.
RESULTS: Compared to DTT and SSQ, the FS measure at 4 kHz was able to distinguish NH from slight and mild-to-moderate SNHL subjects, and was strongly correlated with their thresholds in quiet determined separately in 1-dB step sizes at the similar test frequency. Further analysis with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves indicated area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77 and 0.83 for the FS measure at 4 kHz when PTA thresholds of NH subjects were taken as ≤ 15 dB HL and ≤ 20 dB HL, respectively. At the optimal FS cut-off point for 4 kHz, the FS measure had 77.8% sensitivity and 86.7% specificity to detect 20 dB HL hearing loss.
CONCLUSION: FS measure was superior to DTT and SSQ questionnaire in detecting early frequency-specific threshold shifts in SNHL subjects, particularly at 4 kHz. This method could be used for screening subjects at risk of noise-induced hearing loss.
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
METHODS: The prospective clinical study was conducted at Selayang Hospital (SH) and Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz (HCTM) within one year. A total of 38 children ranging from 3 to 18 years old underwent hearing evaluation using ABR tests and MSSR under sedation. The duration of both tests were then compared.
RESULTS: The estimated hearing threshold of frequency specific chirp MSSR showed good correlation with ABR especially in higher frequencies such as 2000 Hz and 4000Hz with the value of cronbach alpha of 0.890, 0.933, 0.970 and 0.969 on 500Hz, 1000Hz, 2000Hz and 4000Hz. The sensitivity of MSSR is 0.786, 0.75, 0.957 and 0.889 and specificity is 0.85, 0.882, 0.979 and 0.966 over 500Hz, 1000Hz, 2000Hz and 4000Hz. The duration of MSSR tests were shorter than ABR tests in normal hearing children with an average of 35.3 minutes for MSSR tests and 46.4 minutes for ABR tests. This can also be seen in children with hearing loss where the average duration for MSSR tests is 40.0 minutes and 52.0 minutes for ABR tests.
CONCLUSION: MSSR showed good correlation and reliability in comparison with ABR especially on higher frequencies. Hence, MSSR is a good clinical test to diagnose children with hearing loss.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relative contributions of auditory functioning and cognition status to speech recognition in quiet and in noise.
METHODS: We measured speech recognition in quiet and in composite noise using the Malay Hearing in noise test on 72 native Malay speakers (60-82 years) older adults with normal to mild hearing loss. Auditory function included pure tone audiogram, gaps-in-noise, and dichotic digit tests. Cognitive function was assessed using the Malay Montreal cognitive assessment.
RESULTS: Linear regression analyses using backward elimination technique revealed that had the better ear four frequency average (0.5-4kHz) (4FA), high frequency average and Malay Montreal cognitive assessment attributed to speech perception in quiet (total r2=0.499). On the other hand, high frequency average, Malay Montreal cognitive assessment and dichotic digit tests contributed significantly to speech recognition in noise (total r2=0.307). Whereas the better ear high frequency average primarily measured the speech recognition in quiet, the speech recognition in noise was mainly measured by cognitive function.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the fact that besides hearing sensitivity, cognition plays an important role in speech recognition ability among older adults, especially in noisy environments. Therefore, in addition to hearing aids, rehabilitation, which trains cognition, may have a role in improving speech recognition in noise ability of older adults.
DESIGN: Quasi-experimental and repeated measure study designs were applied in this study. Two different stopping criteria were used, (1) a fixed-signal averaging 4000 sweeps and, (2) a minimum quality indicator of Fmp = 3.1 with a minimum of 800 sweeps.
STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-nine normally hearing adults (18 females, 11 male) participated.
RESULTS: Wave V amplitudes were significantly larger in the LS CE-Chirp® recorded from the vertical montage than the ipsilateral montage. Waves I and III amplitudes were significantly larger from the ipsilateral LS CE-Chirp® than from the other montages and stimulus combinations. The differences in the quality of the ABR recording between the vertical and ipsilateral montages were marginal.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the result suggested that the vertical LS CE-Chirp® ABR had a high potential for a threshold-seeking application, because it produced a higher wave V amplitude. The Ipsilateral LS CE-Chirp® ABR, on the other hand, might also have a high potential for the site of lesion application, because it produced larger waves I and III amplitudes.