Critical Bandwidth and Sensitivity Prediction in the Acoustic Stapedial Reflex

Schwartz, Daniel M.; Sanders, Jay W.

doi:10.1044/jshd.4102.244

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because middle ear abnormalities may affect the relation between the reflex thresholds for noise and tones," lo and Several studies5, 7, 9,11,13,[16][17][18] because the mentally retarded population has a greater incidence of middle ear problems than the population at large, efforts were made to eliminate any person with middle ear pathology. A prospective subject who had evidenced more than one episode of middle ear pathology for either ear over the past three years was rejected.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting Hearing Sensitivity and Audiometric Slope for Mentally Retarded Persons

1982

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sensitivity prediction from the acoustic reflex (SPAR) test was administered to 90 subjects who were classified according to four levels of mental retardation and five levels of hearing sensitivity. SPAR results showed accurate hearing level prediction for 58% of the subjects, one-category errors for 29%, and two-or three-category errors for 13%.Audiometric slope predictions were also made and were accurate for 58% of the subjects. SPAR results indicated that the greater the hearing loss, the less likely that normal hearing would be predicted. Hearing level predictions for the retarded population were of comparable accuracy but slightly poorer than those previously reported for the nonretarded. The SPAR is suggested as a useful addition to the audiologist's repertoire, particularly for retarded individuals who are difficult to test.Prediction of hearing levels from acoustic reflex thresholds (ARTs) is based on the finding that the reflex thresholds are relatively constant as stimulus bandwidth increases to a critical point, beyond which bandwidth increase produces threshold decrea~e.~. l4 For normal hearers, the difference in ARTs for broadband noise and pure tones (both measured in sensation level) is about 20 sensitivity prediction from the acoustic reflex (SPAR). Although procedural and sample differences prevent exact comparison, accurate prediction is about 60 to 70%, whereas approximate prediction (no error or one-category error) is near 95%. Jerger et a1.l' concluded from previous studies that predictions for normal hearing are very good and predictions for hearing loss, especially moderate loss, are often wrong.So far, a single study has evaluated the SPAR for retarded individuals: Niswander and Ruth13 tested 32 trainable adults using both ears. Predictions of hearing level were accurate for 57% of the ears (with a tendency to exaggerate the level), but audiometric slope predictions were accurate for only 3 1%. Although two conductive losses were missed, no sensorineural hearing loss was undetected. Niswander and Ruth13 concluded that the test was useful for predicting magnitude but not slope of hearing loss for people who are mentally retarded.In order to assess the usefulness of the SPAR with individuals exhibiting all levels of subnormal intelligence, we tested subjects showing mild, moderate, severe, and profound retardation. Moreover, we used a moderately large nuniber of subjects, and to reduce potential data correlation problems, a single ear per subject. METHODdB.3 Those with sensorineural hearing losses show smaller differences, presumably because their critical bands are wider, reducing the number of bands available for loudness s~mmation.~ Prediction of audiometric slope from ARTS is based on the assumption that a listener with a flat audiometric contour will have similar ARTS for low-pass and for high-pass filtered noise.g A sloping threshold contour supposedly attenuates the relative loudness contributions of critical bands in the higher frequencies. The result is a more sensitive ART for...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because middle ear abnormalities may affect the relation between the reflex thresholds for noise and tones," lo and Several studies5, 7, 9, 11,13,[16][17][18] 77…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Hearing Sensitivity and Audiometric Slope for Mentally Retarded Persons

1982

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on acoustic reflex findings for I 156 ears, Jerger et al (1 1) concluded that with the SPAR method, hearing loss was predicted with reasonable accuracy. Probably as a result of this initial encouraging experience with SPAR and the obvious clinical attractiveness of an objective measure for estimating hearing loss, especially in children, the literature is replete with reports of clinical experience with both the original SPAR method (1,6,7,15,(22)(23)(24) and a modified version of the SPAR (6,7,12). There are, in addition, descriptions of other, novel methods for hearing loss identification and prediction by the acoustic reflex, including regression equations (2,16,21) and a bivariate plot coordinate system (9, 17,20).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hearing loss prediction by the acoustic reflex, although an objective procedure, is apparently influenced by a variety of factors, including degree of hearing loss (6,13,15,17,22), central auditory dysfunction (17), subject age (6-8, 12, 13), and minor middle ear dysfunction (6)(7)(8)13). Of these factors, age and minor middle ear dysfunction have been associated specifically with a reduction in predictive accuracy for the SPAR methods (6,7).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing Loss Prediction by the Acoustic Reflex

Hall

Bleakney

1981

Ear and Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared the accuracy of seven methods of hearing loss prediction by the acoustic reflex in 60 subjects. The methods were two versions of Sensitivity Prediction by Acoustic Reflex, four regression equations, and the bivariate plot coordinate system. Accuracy of hearing loss prediction exceeded 60% for all methods. In general, the bivariate plot system most accurately identified hearing loss. Regression equations tended to under estimate loss. Sensitivity prediction by the acoustic reflex and the bivariate plot system tended to over predict loss. Accuracy of prediction was usually reduced in older subjects and in subjects with minor immittance abnormalities. The effect of age and immittance abnormalities, however, varied among methods.Address reprint requests to James W. Hall,

show abstract

Clinical Impressions of Acoustic Reflex Measures in an Adult Population

Wagoner¹,

Goodwine²

1977

Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical Bandwidth and Sensitivity Prediction in the Acoustic Stapedial Reflex

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Predicting Hearing Sensitivity and Audiometric Slope for Mentally Retarded Persons

Predicting Hearing Sensitivity and Audiometric Slope for Mentally Retarded Persons

Hearing Loss Prediction by the Acoustic Reflex

Clinical Impressions of Acoustic Reflex Measures in an Adult Population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About