Discrimination of degrees of auditory performance from the digits-in-noise test based on hearing status

Armstrong, Nicole; Oosterloo, Berthe C; Croll, Pauline H.; Ikram, M. Arfan; Goedegebure, André

doi:10.1080/14992027.2020.1787531

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The applications Digits-in-noise Test (5 articles) (10,(31)(32)(33)(34) , uHear (4 articles) (22)(23)(24)(25) , HearScreen (2 articles) (27,28) , hearTest (2 articles) (35,36) and Hearing Test (2 articles) (29,30) were the most studied. The others applications were EarScale, uHearing Test, Free field hearing (FFH) and Free Hearing Test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All of the studies included were published between 2015 and 2020. Nine apps were found: uHear (22)(23)(24)(25) , uHearing Test (25) , EarScale (26) , HearScreen (27,28) , HearingTest (29,30) , Digits-in-Noise Test (10,(31)(32)(33)(34) , hearTest (35,36) , Free Field Hearing (FFH) (37) , Free Hearing Test (37) . The most investigated apps were Digits-in noise Test (5 articles) and uHear (4 articles).…”

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All apps found in this study used pure tone as the auditory stimulus (23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(35)(36)(37) , except for Digits-in-Noise Test (10,(31)(32)(33)(34) , which used speech stimulation through digits and Free field hearing (FFH) (37) which used words.…”

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review

Melo

Silva

Camargo

et al. 2022

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To verify the accuracy of smartphone apps to identify hearing loss. Research strategies A systematic review followed the PRISMA-DATA checklist. The search strategies were applied across four databases (Lilacs, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) and grey literature (Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis). Selection criteria The acronym PIRD was used in review. This included populations of any gender and all age groups. The Index test is the smartphone-based hearing screening test; the Reference test is the pure-tone audiometry, which is considered the gold reference for hearing diagnostics; the diagnosis was performed via validity data (sensitivity and specificity) to identify hearing loss and diagnostic studies. Data analysis Two reviewers selected the studies in a two-step process. The risk of bias was assessed according to the criteria of the QUADAS-2. Results Of 1395 articles, 104 articles were eligible for full-text reading and 17 were included. Only four met all criteria for methodological quality. All of the included studies were published in English between 2015 and 2020. The applications Digits-in noise Test (5 articles), uHear (4 articles), HearScreen (2 articles), hearTest (2 articles) and Hearing Test (2 articles) were the most studied. All this application showed sensitivity and specificity values between 75 and 100%. The other applications were EarScale, uHearing Test, Free field hearing (FFH) and Free Hearing Test. Conclusion uHear, Digit-in-Noise Test, HearTest and HearScreen have shown significant values of sensitivity and specificity and can be considered as the most accurate methods for screening of hearing impairment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review

Melo

Silva

Camargo

et al. 2022

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In case the background noise is non-speech (as in the present study), it does not constitute a meaningful signal that would draw attention away from the primary task of digit reception. Research suggests that the DTT primarily assesses hearing sensitivity (Armstrong et al, 2020;Koole et al, 2016) and that the impact of non-auditory factors such as working memory or attention are negligible (Heinrich et al, 2015). In this sense, the DTT constitutes a well-established, objective test of speech-in-noise reception.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality captures dissociations of subjective versus objective hearing in noise

Wöstmann¹,

Erb²,

Kreitewolf³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acoustic noise is pervasive in human environments, with some individuals being more tolerant to noise than others. We here demonstrate the considerable explanatory potential of personality (focusing on the BIG-5 traits neuroticism and extraversion) on subjective self-report measures and objective psycho-acoustic metrics of noise tolerance. Under statistical control for demographic factors in two samples (total N = 1,103) and in agreement with pre-registered hypotheses, lower neuroticism and higher extraversion independently explained superior self-reported noise resistance, speech-in-noise comprehension, and acceptable background noise. Surprisingly, objective performance in a speech-in-noise task instead was inferior for individuals scoring lower on neuroticism or higher on extraversion. In turn, low-neuroticism/high-extraversion individuals relatively overrated their noise tolerance, expressed as higher subjective than objective noise tolerance. Of benefit to tailored audiological treatments, personality holds explanatory power for inter-individual differences in coping with acoustic noise and helps us understand discrepancies in subjective versus objective noise tolerance.

show abstract

“…In the case that the background noise is non-speech (as in the present study), it does not constitute a meaningful signal that would draw attention away from the primary task of digit recognition. Research suggests that the DTT primarily assesses hearing sensitivity [42,43] and that associations with non-auditory factors such as working memory or attention are considerably smaller [44]. In this sense, the DTT constitutes a well-established, objective test of hearing in noise.…”

Section: Personality Can Account For Objective Hearing In Noisementioning

confidence: 99%

Personality captures dissociations of subjective versus objective hearing in noise

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acoustic noise is pervasive in human environments. Some individuals are more tolerant to noise than others. We demonstrate the explanatory potential of Big-5 personality traits neuroticism (being emotionally unstable) and extraversion (being enthusiastic, outgoing) on subjective self-report and objective psycho-acoustic metrics of hearing in noise in two samples (total N = 1103). Under statistical control for demographics and in agreement with pre-registered hypotheses, lower neuroticism and higher extraversion independently explained superior self-reported noise resistance, speech-hearing ability and acceptable background noise levels. Surprisingly, objective speech-in-noise recognition instead increased with higher levels of neuroticism. In turn, the bias in subjectively overrating one's own hearing in noise decreases with higher neuroticism but increases with higher extraversion. Of benefit to currently underspecified frameworks of hearing in noise and tailored audiological treatments, these results show that personality explains inter-individual differences in coping with acoustic noise, which is a ubiquitous source of distraction and a health hazard.

show abstract

Discrimination of degrees of auditory performance from the digits-in-noise test based on hearing status

Cited by 5 publications

References 32 publications

Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review

Accuracy of smartphone-based hearing screening tests: a systematic review

Personality captures dissociations of subjective versus objective hearing in noise

Personality captures dissociations of subjective versus objective hearing in noise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About