Equivalence and test-retest reproducibility of conventional and extended-high-frequency audiometric thresholds obtained using pure-tone and narrow-band-noise stimuli.

Related Articles

Equivalence and test-retest reproducibility of conventional and extended-high-frequency audiometric thresholds obtained using pure-tone and narrow-band-noise stimuli.

Int J Audiol. 2017 Apr 07;:1-8

Authors: John AB, Kreisman BM

Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Extended high-frequency (EHF) audiometry is useful for evaluating ototoxic exposures and may relate to speech recognition, localisation and hearing aid benefit. There is a need to determine whether common clinical practice for EHF audiometry using tone and noise stimuli is reliable. We evaluated equivalence and compared test-retest (TRT) reproducibility for audiometric thresholds obtained using pure tones and narrowband noise (NBN) from 0.25 to 16 kHz.
DESIGN: Thresholds and test-retest reproducibility for stimuli in the conventional (0.25-6 kHz) and EHF (8-16 kHz) frequency ranges were compared in a repeated-measures design.
STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 70 ears of adults with normal hearing.
RESULTS: Thresholds obtained using NBN were significantly lower than thresholds obtained using pure tones from 0.5 to 16 kHz, but not 0.25 kHz. Good TRT reproducibility (within 2 dB) was observed for both stimuli at all frequencies. Responses at the lower limit of the presentation range for NBN centred at 14 and 16 kHz suggest unreliability for NBN as a threshold stimulus at these frequencies.
CONCLUSION: Thresholds in the conventional and EHF ranges showed good test-retest reproducibility, but differed between stimulus types. Care should be taken when comparing pure-tone thresholds with NBN thresholds especially at these frequencies.

PMID: 28388868 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2pgB6gy
via IFTTT