BackgroundHearing screening tests based on pure-tone audiometry may be conducted on mobile devices, provided that the devices are specially calibrated for the purpose. Calibration consists of determining the reference sound level and can be performed in relation to the hearing threshold of normal-hearing persons. In the case of devices provided by the manufacturer, together with bundled headphones, the reference sound level can be calculated once for all devices of the same model.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the hearing threshold measured by a mobile device that was calibrated using a model-specific, biologically determined reference sound level with the hearing threshold obtained in pure-tone audiometry.MethodsTrial participants were recruited offline using face-to-face prompting from among Otolaryngology Clinic patients, who own Android-based mobile devices with bundled headphones. The hearing threshold was obtained on a mobile device by means of an open access app, Hearing Test, with incorporated model-specific reference sound levels. These reference sound levels were previously determined in uncontrolled conditions in relation to the hearing threshold of normal-hearing persons. An audiologist-assisted self-measurement was conducted by the participants in a sound booth, and it involved determining the lowest audible sound generated by the device within the frequency range of 250 Hz to 8 kHz. The results were compared with pure-tone audiometry.ResultsA total of 70 subjects, 34 men and 36 women, aged 18-71 years (mean 36, standard deviation [SD] 11) participated in the trial. The hearing threshold obtained on mobile devices was significantly different from the one determined by pure-tone audiometry with a mean difference of 2.6 dB (95% CI 2.0-3.1) and SD of 8.3 dB (95% CI 7.9-8.7). The number of differences not greater than 10 dB reached 89% (95% CI 88-91), whereas the mean absolute difference was obtained at 6.5 dB (95% CI 6.2-6.9). Sensitivity and specificity for a mobile-based screening method were calculated at 98% (95% CI 93-100.0) and 79% (95% CI 71-87), respectively.ConclusionsThe method of hearing self-test carried out on mobile devices with bundled headphones demonstrates high compatibility with pure-tone audiometry, which confirms its potential application in hearing monitoring, screening tests, or epidemiological examinations on a large scale.

BackgroundHearing tests carried out in home setting by means of mobile devices require previous calibration of the reference sound level. Mobile devices with bundled headphones create a possibility of applying the predefined level for a particular model as an alternative to calibrating each device separately.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine the reference sound level for sets composed of a mobile device and bundled headphones.MethodsReference sound levels for Android-based mobile devices were determined using an open access mobile phone app by means of biological calibration, that is, in relation to the normal-hearing threshold. The examinations were conducted in 2 groups: an uncontrolled and a controlled one. In the uncontrolled group, the fully automated self-measurements were carried out in home conditions by 18- to 35-year-old subjects, without prior hearing problems, recruited online. Calibration was conducted as a preliminary step in preparation for further examination. In the controlled group, audiologist-assisted examinations were performed in a sound booth, on normal-hearing subjects verified through pure-tone audiometry, recruited offline from among the workers and patients of the clinic. In both the groups, the reference sound levels were determined on a subject’s mobile device using the Bekesy audiometry. The reference sound levels were compared between the groups. Intramodel and intermodel analyses were carried out as well.ResultsIn the uncontrolled group, 8988 calibrations were conducted on 8620 different devices representing 2040 models. In the controlled group, 158 calibrations (test and retest) were conducted on 79 devices representing 50 models. Result analysis was performed for 10 most frequently used models in both the groups. The difference in reference sound levels between uncontrolled and controlled groups was 1.50 dB (SD 4.42). The mean SD of the reference sound level determined for devices within the same model was 4.03 dB (95% CI 3.93-4.11). Statistically significant differences were found across models.ConclusionsReference sound levels determined in the uncontrolled group are comparable to the values obtained in the controlled group. This validates the use of biological calibration in the uncontrolled group for determining the predefined reference sound level for new devices. Moreover, due to a relatively small deviation of the reference sound level for devices of the same model, it is feasible to conduct hearing screening on devices calibrated with the predefined reference sound level.

BackgroundPotential methods of application of self-administered Web-based pure-tone audiometry conducted at home on a PC with a sound card and ordinary headphones depend on the value of measurement error in such tests.ObjectiveThe aim of this research was to determine the measurement error of the hearing threshold determined in the way described above and to identify and analyze factors influencing its value.MethodsThe evaluation of the hearing threshold was made in three series: (1) tests on a clinical audiometer, (2) self-tests done on a specially calibrated computer under the supervision of an audiologist, and (3) self-tests conducted at home. The research was carried out on the group of 51 participants selected from patients of an audiology outpatient clinic. From the group of 51 patients examined in the first two series, the third series was self-administered at home by 37 subjects (73%).ResultsThe average difference between the value of the hearing threshold determined in series 1 and in series 2 was -1.54dB with standard deviation of 7.88dB and a Pearson correlation coefficient of .90. Between the first and third series, these values were -1.35dB±10.66dB and .84, respectively. In series 3, the standard deviation was most influenced by the error connected with the procedure of hearing threshold identification (6.64dB), calibration error (6.19dB), and additionally at the frequency of 250Hz by frequency nonlinearity error (7.28dB).ConclusionsThe obtained results confirm the possibility of applying Web-based pure-tone audiometry in screening tests. In the future, modifications of the method leading to the decrease in measurement error can broaden the scope of Web-based pure-tone audiometry application.

BackgroundOnline hearing tests conducted in home settings on a personal computer (PC) require prior calibration. Biological calibration consists of approximating the reference sound level via the hearing threshold of a person with normal hearing.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to identify the error of the proposed methods of biological calibration, their duration, and the subjective difficulty in conducting these tests via PC.MethodsSeven methods have been proposed for measuring the calibration coefficients. All measurements were performed in reference to the hearing threshold of a normal-hearing person. Three methods were proposed for determining the reference sound level on the basis of these calibration coefficients. Methods were compared for the estimated error, duration, and difficulty of the calibration. Web-based self-assessed measurements of the calibration coefficients were carried out in 3 series: (1) at a otolaryngology clinic, (2) at the participant’s home, and (3) again at the clinic. Additionally, in series 1 and 3, pure-tone audiometry was conducted and series 3 was followed by an offline questionnaire concerning the difficulty of the calibration. Participants were recruited offline from coworkers of the Department and Clinic of Otolaryngology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland.ResultsAll 25 participants, aged 22-35 years (median 27) completed all tests and filled in the questionnaire. The smallest standard deviation of the calibration coefficient in the test-retest measurement was obtained at the level of 3.87 dB (95% CI 3.52-4.29) for the modulated signal presented in accordance with the rules of Bekesy’s audiometry. The method is characterized by moderate duration time and a relatively simple procedure. The simplest and shortest method was the method of self-adjustment of the sound volume to the barely audible level. In the test-retest measurement, the deviation of this method equaled 4.97 dB (95% CI 4.53-5.51). Among methods determining the reference sound level, the levels determined independently for each frequency revealed the smallest error. The estimated standard deviations of the difference in the hearing threshold between the examination conducted on a biologically calibrated PC and pure-tone audiometry varied from 7.27 dB (95% CI 6.71-7.93) to 10.38 dB (95% CI 9.11-12.03), depending on the calibration method.ConclusionsIn this study, an analysis of biological calibration was performed and the presented results included calibration error, calibration time, and calibration difficulty. These values determine potential applications of Web-based hearing tests conducted in home settings and are decisive factors when selecting the calibration method. If there are no substantial time limitations, it is advisable to use Bekesy method and determine the reference sound level independently at each frequency because this approach is characterized by the lowest error.

Background In addition to the aging process, risk factors for hearing loss in adults include, among others, exposure to noise, use of ototoxic drugs, genetics, and limited access to medical care. Differences in exposure to these factors are bound to be reflected in the prevalence of hearing loss. Assessment of hearing loss can easily be carried out on a large scale and at low cost using mobile apps. Objective This study aimed to conduct a worldwide assessment of the differences in hearing loss prevalence between countries in a group of mobile device users. Methods Hearing tests were conducted using the open-access Android-based mobile app Hearing Test. The app is available free of charge in the Google Play store, provided that consent to the use of the results for scientific purposes is given. This study included hearing tests carried out on device models supported by the app with bundled headphones in the set. Calibration factors for supported models were determined using the biological method. The tests consisted of self-determining the quietest audible tone in the frequency range from 250 Hz to 8 kHz by adjusting its intensity using the buttons. The ambient noise level was optionally monitored using a built-in microphone. Following the test, the user could compare his hearing threshold against age norms by providing his or her age. The user's location was identified based on the phone’s IP address. Results From November 23, 2016 to November 22, 2019, 733,716 hearing tests were conducted on 236,716 mobile devices across 212 countries. After rejecting the tests that were incomplete, performed with disconnected headphones, not meeting the time criterion, repeated by the same user, or carried out regularly on one device, 116,733 of 733,716 tests (15.9%) were qualified for further analysis. The prevalence of hearing loss, defined as the average threshold at frequencies 0.5 kHz, 1 kHz, 2 kHz, and 4 kHz above 25 dB HL in the better ear, was calculated at 15.6% (95% CI 15.4-15.8). Statistically significant differences were found between countries (P<.001), with the highest prevalences for Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India (>28%) and the lowest prevalences for Taiwan, Finland, and South Korea (<11%). Conclusions Hearing thresholds measured by means of mobile devices were congruent with the literature data on worldwide hearing loss prevalence. Uniform recruitment criteria simplify the comparison of the hearing loss prevalence across countries. Hearing testing on mobile devices may be a valid tool in epidemiological studies carried out on a large scale.

The present study indicates that mucosal thickening within paranasal sinuses among untreated patients with CRS is stable over shortand middle-time intervals, regardless of the initial intensity of the disease. The time delay between the CT examination and qualification for surgery does not influence the decision regarding the performance of the operation. The results suggest the conclusion that repeating CT scans in symptomatic, untreated patients with CRS should be seriously considered.

Sensory deficits in one modality lead to functional changes of brain structures. Neural reorganization may result in sensory compensation and enhanced performance in sensory sensitivity tests. Many studies investigated how deafness affects functioning of the intact senses. Overall, their results remain inconclusive, mainly due to the statistically underpowered conclusions. A limited number of studies have focused on deaf people's convictions on their sensory abilities. This study compared a large sample of profoundly deaf subjects (n = 74) with hearing individuals (n = 100) in terms of their convictions about own sensory performance. First, participants were screened with speech perception tests. Then, they were asked to rate their own sensory sensitivity using two reference categories: (1) other people and (2) their usual sensitivity. Results show that majority of deaf individuals rated their intact senses (i.e., vision, smell, taste, and touch) as more sensitive than hearing controls. Furthermore, on the day of testing deaf individuals reported increased performance of the intact senses as referred to the usual performance. Explanations of the positive self‐evaluations of sensory abilities focus on the common belief among deaf people about sensory compensation and on using self‐enhancement strategies.Practical applicationsReported study introduces important knowledge about positive self‐views on sensory sensitivity of deaf individuals. Although these positive self‐views are unlikely to reflect the actual sensory performance, presented results are of high significance for the sensory scientists. Functional aspects of self‐views in domain of sensory sensitivity should guide educational programs and product design targeted to deaf individuals.

Significance: Measurements of auditory ossicles displacement are commonly carried out by means of laser-Doppler vibrometry (LDV), which is considered to be a gold standard. The limitation of the LDV method, especially for in vivo measurements, is the necessity to expose an object in a straight line to a laser beam operating from a distance. An alternative to this approach is the use of a handheld laser-fiber vibrometry probe (HLFVP) with a curved tip.Aim: We evaluate the feasibility of an HLFVP with a curved tip for measuring sound-induced displacement of the auditory ossicles.Approach: A handheld vibrometer probe guiding the laser beam with a fiber-optic cable was used for displacement measurements of the incus body and the posterior crus of the stapes. Tonal stimuli at frequencies of 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz were presented by means of an insert earphone positioned in the outer ear canal. The probe was fixed at the measurement site using a tripod or hand-held by one of the two surgeons. Results:The measurements were carried out on six fresh temporal bones. Multivariate analysis of variance showed statistically significant differences for stimulus frequency (F 3;143 ¼ 29.37, p < 0.001, and η 2 ¼ 0.35), bone (F 5;143 ¼ 4.61, p ¼ 0.001, and η 2 ¼ 0.01), and measurement site (F 1;143 ¼ 4.74, p ¼ 0.03, and η 2 ¼ 0.02) in the absence of statistically significant differences for the probe fixation method (F 2;143 ¼ 0.15, p ¼ 0.862, and η 2 ¼ 0.001). Standard deviations of the means were 6.9, 2.6, 1.9, and 0.6 nm∕Pa for frequency, bone, site, and fixation, respectively. Ear transfer functions were found to be consistent with literature data. Conclusions:The feasibility of applying HLFVP to measure the displacement of auditory ossicles has been confirmed. HLFVP offers the possibility of carrying out measurements at various angles; however, this needs to be standardized taking into account anatomical limitations and surgical convenience.