Remote auditory assessment using Portable Automated Rapid Testing (PART) and participant-owned devices

Abstract

Remote testing of auditory function can be transformative to both basic research and hearing healthcare; however, historically, many obstacles have limited remote collection of reliable and valid auditory psychometric data. Here, we report performance on a battery of auditory processing tests using a remotely administered system, Portable Automatic Rapid Testing. We compare a previously reported dataset collected in a laboratory setting with the same measures using uncalibrated, participant-owned devices in remote settings (experiment 1, n = 40) remote with and without calibrated hardware (experiment 2, n = 36) and laboratory with and without calibrated hardware (experiment 3, n = 58). Results were well-matched across datasets and had similar reliability, but overall performance was slightly worse than published norms. Analyses of potential nuisance factors such as environmental noise, distraction, or lack of calibration failed to provide reliable evidence that these factors contributed to the observed variance in performance. These data indicate feasibility of remote testing of suprathreshold auditory processing using participants' own devices. Although the current investigation was limited to young participants without hearing difficulties, its outcomes demonstrate the potential for large-scale, remote hearing testing of more hearing-diverse populations both to advance basic science and to establish the clinical viability of auditory remote testing.

Effects of Gamification on Assessment of Spatial Release From Masking

“…Headphones were required to be used and verified by the study team via the video image, but the type of headphone was not controlled. This method is supported by the results in the study of Lelo de Larrea-Mancera et al (2022) , who found no significant influence of equipment or test environment on the traditional SRM tested in this manner.…”

“…The participants were tested remotely with their own equipment (i.e., headphones and mobile device or tablet) and were instructed to complete the testing in a quiet location free of distractions, following the procedures described in the study of Lelo de Larrea-Mancera et al (2022) . 1 The order of presentation of traditional and gamified SRM was counterbalanced across two groups to ensure that order effects would not bias the comparison between the two tests.…”

“…Thus, the levels reported are referred to as nominal dB. However, Lelo de Larrea-Mancera et al (2022) found that performance was not statistically different for listeners using calibrated and uncalibrated systems. Whereas overall intensity can influence spatial release below 20-dB sensation level, due to reduced audibility of high-frequency cues ( Jakien, Kampel, Gordon, & Gallun, 2017 ; Rana & Buchholz, 2018 ), at the suprathreshold levels used here, spatial release is consistent even when headphones reduce overall level by more than 10 dB ( Lelo de Larrea-Mancera et al, 2020 ).…”

Mobile audiometry for hearing threshold assessment: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Recent advances in remote audiological assessment have expanded the scope beyond pure tone assessment. Studies have explored remote assessment of supra-threshold hearing deficits, 34 and speech recognition via internet tests and the telephone. 35,36 Based on this review's findings, future work should prioritise combining pure tone threshold assessment with other tests, such as Speech Recognition and Digits-in-Noise, for a more rounded evaluation of hearing ability.…”

Comparison of Psychometric Functions Measured Using Remote Testing and Laboratory Testing

“…Accurately measuring psychoacoustic thresholds outside the confines of specialized laboratories could initiate important changes in how data is collected and would increase accessibility for basic and translational research [ 4 ]. Previous studies have shown success in comparing equivalent data collected in the lab versus remotely with acoustic hearing [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ] as well as with electric hearing [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. For instance, Lelo de Larrea-Mancera et al (2022) [ 5 ] measured performance on a battery of psychoacoustic experiments in tasks involving audibility, temporal fine structure sensitivity, spectro-temproal modulation sensitivity, and spatial release from masking from a large group of young normal-hearing listeners.…”