Effect of response method in participants with sensorineural hearing loss
Keywords:Pure tone threshold, Oral response, False alarm rate, Response method
Background:Aim of the study was to compare the speed of response, false-alarm rate, and subject preference of different response methods i.e. raising a hand, using response switch, and oral response mode for measuring pure-tone thresholds.
Methods:Forty five participants (female-21 and 24 male) were included in the study with sensorineural hearing loss of various degree. Response method order was randomly assigned to 3 different sessions. Air-conduction thresholds were measured thrice for each participant in octave intervals between 250 Hz and 8000 Hz. The 2nd and 3rd session were performed for different response method on a different day but within 2 weeks of the 1st session.
Results:Difference in the time was noted when compared with the extent of time required to complete the test for each response method. On an average, using the pushbutton method took 3.02 to 3.42 minutes less than using hand-raise or verbal response methods. There was also a significant participant preference for using the response button. No significant difference between response method for threshold level and number of false positives (P = 0.15) was found.
Conclusion:This study supports the use of the response button when measuring auditory thresholds for sensorineural hearing loss.
ANSI. American national standard specifications for artificial head-bone for the calibration of audiometer bone vibrators (S3.13-1972). New York: ANSI; 1973.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. Rockville, MD: ASLHA; 2005.
Arlinger SD. Comparison of ascending and bracketing methods in pure tone audiometry: a multi-laboratory study. Scand Audiol. 1979;8:247-51.
Burk MH, Wiley TL. Continuous versus pulsed tones in audiometry. Am J Audiol. 2004;13:54-61.
Carhart R, Jerger J. Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hearing Disord. 1959;24:330-45.
Harris JD. Optimum threshold crossings and time window validation in threshold pure-tone audiometry. J Acoust Soc Am. 1979;66:1545-7.
Hughson W, Westlake HD. Manual for program outline for rehabilitation of aural casualties both military and civilian. Transact Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1944;48(Suppl):1-15.
Mineau SM, Schlauch RS. Threshold measurement for patients with tinnitus: pulsed or continuous tones. Am J Audiol. 1997;6:52-6.
Reger SN. Standardization of pure-tone audiometer testing technique. Laryngoscope. 1950;60:161-85.
Borton TE, Nolen BL, Luks SB, Meline NC. Clinical application of insert earphone for audiometry. Audiology. 1989;28:61-70.
Lindgren F. A comparison of the variability in the threshold measured with insert and conventional supra aural headphone. Scand Audiol. 1990;19:19-23.
Tyler RS, Wood EJ. A comparison of manual methods for measuring hearing levels. Audiology. 1980;29:316-29.
American Speech and Hearing Association. Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. Rockville, MD: ASHA; 1978.
Bogardus ST, Yeuh B, Shekelle PG. Screening and management of adult hearing loss in primary care: clinical applications. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289:1986-90.
Hamill TA, Haas WH. The relationship of pulsed, continuous, and warble extended high-frequency thresholds. J Comm Dis. 1986;19:227-35.
DiGiovanni, Jennifer NR. Response method in audiometry. Am J Audiol. 2007;16:145-8.
Jerger J, Jerger SJ, Mauldin L. Studies in impedance audiometry in normal and sensorineural ears. Arch Otolaryngol. 1972;9:513-23.
Dancer J, Ventry IM, Hill W. Effect of stimulus presentation and instruction on pure tone threshold and false alarm rate. J Speech Hearing Disord. 1976;41:315-22.