Comparison of the Hearing Threshold Measured by Manual Pure-Tone and by Self-Recording (Békésy) Audiometry

Erlandsson, B.; Håkanson, Håkan; Ivarsson, A; Nilsson, P

doi:10.3109/00206097909070067

Cited by 35 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to the present study, thresholds were in general 0 -2 dB higher with automated systems compared to traditional audiometry (Harris, 1979;Formby Margolis et al, 2010). On the other hand, self-recording audiometry lead to substantial lower hearing thresholds compared to manual audiometry (Erlandsson et al, 1979;Harris, 1979;Lutman et al, 1989). In this study, the systematic difference between user-operated 2AFC audiometry and traditional audiometry performed in a soundproof booth was larger at 250 Hz and at 6000 Hz, which may be caused by the use of two different headphones .…”

Section: Systematic Differences Between Test Procedurescontrasting

confidence: 81%

“…Standard deviations were calculated from pooled variances from fi ve repeated tests in ten subjects. They ranged from 2.4 to 4.2 dB, corresponding to SDdiffs of 3.4 to 5.9 dB, which were much lower than the reported SDs from traditional audiometry from 4.7 to 10.4 dB (Erlandsson et al, 1979). In another study self-recording audiometry test-retest SDdiff was 4.2 to 7.6 dB for 20 normal subjects (Burns & Hinchcliffe, 1957).…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The standard deviation of differences (SDdiff) is the best parameter to describe the test-retest threshold variability between two methods in serial testing (Dobie, 1983).Typical SDdiffs from manual audiometry as well as self-recording audiometry are around 3 -7 dB (Burns & Hinchcliffe, 1957;Atherley & Dingwall-Fordyce, 1963;Erlandsson et al, 1979;Lutman et al, 1989;Ho et al, 2009). For automated audiometry SDdiffs have been reported around 5 -8 dB (Ho et al, 2009;Eikelboom et al, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A user-operated audiometry method based on the maximum likelihood principle and the two-alternative forced-choice paradigm

Schmidt

Brandt

Pedersen

et al. 2014

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Systematic Differences Between Test Procedurescontrasting

confidence: 81%

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A user-operated audiometry method based on the maximum likelihood principle and the two-alternative forced-choice paradigm

Schmidt

Brandt

Pedersen

et al. 2014

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, accuracy improvement of the Web-based examination can be achieved by modifying the method. An interesting solution is offered by, eg, the Békésy’s method, as it is characterized by lower standard deviation in the test-retest examination compared to the ascending method [17], and additionally it is not burdened with discretization errors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Test Web-Based Pure-Tone Audiometry: Validity Evaluation and Measurement Error Analysis

Masalski¹,

Kręcicki²

2013

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In this study we chose to use the Békésy tracking method in the determination of hearing thresholds because it is a relatively easy method for the subjects with acceptable test-retest variability (Erlandsson et al, 1979). Other methods might be superior in some aspects, e.g.…”

Section: The Békésy Tracking Methods For Determination Of Hearing Thrementioning

confidence: 99%

A Method for Evaluating Temporal, Spectral and Combined Temporal-Spectral Resolution of Hearing

Larsby

Arlinger²

1998

Scandinavian Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A method for evaluating the spectral, temporal and combined spectral temporal resolution of hearing is presented; it was used to obtain masked hearing thresholds using the fixed frequency Békéy technique. The masking noise was a broadband random noise with a 3 dB/octave roll off (pink noise). Spectral resolution was assessed by introducing a spectral gap in the masking noise centered at the test tone frequency. Temporal resolution was assessed by introducing temporal gaps, the centre of which coincided in time with the centre of the test tone-pulses. The spectral and temporal gaps were used either separately or simultaneously. Release of masking values were calculated from masked hearing thresholds. One test group comprised 16 normal-hearing subjects, a second group 16 elderly (age 55-75 years) subjects with normal hearing for their age. Temporal gaps were 20, 50 and 100 ms long. Spectral gaps had a bandwidth of 1/10, 1/3, and 1 octave. Each gap or combination of gaps was tested at the frequencies 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz. Release of masking increased with increasing temporal or spectral gaps. If a temporal gap and a spectral gap were combined, the release of masking increased further. Maximum release of masking was obtained with the 100 ms temporal gap combined with the 1 octave notch filter. The overall difference in release of masking between the young and elderly normal-hearing group was 2 dB.

show abstract

Comparison of the Hearing Threshold Measured by Manual Pure-Tone and by Self-Recording (Békésy) Audiometry

Cited by 35 publications

References 10 publications

A user-operated audiometry method based on the maximum likelihood principle and the two-alternative forced-choice paradigm

A user-operated audiometry method based on the maximum likelihood principle and the two-alternative forced-choice paradigm

Self-Test Web-Based Pure-Tone Audiometry: Validity Evaluation and Measurement Error Analysis

A Method for Evaluating Temporal, Spectral and Combined Temporal-Spectral Resolution of Hearing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About