Search

Objectives: Hearing loss prevalence is increasing, with an estimated 2.5 billion people affected globally by 2050. Scalable service delivery models using innovative technologies and task-shifting are World Health Organization priorities to improve access to hearing care, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Smartphone-facilitated audiometry in the community using hearing aids covered by noise-attenuating ear cups ("in-situ") could support more accessible hearing care when provided by less trained individuals such as community health workers (CHWs). This study aimed to determine the validity of this method for potential hearing aid fitting. Study objectives included determining the maximum permissible ambient noise level (MPANL), inter-device reliability, clinical threshold accuracy, reliability, and performance in real-world settings., Design: Experiment 1: 15 normal-hearing adult participants were evaluated to determine MPANLs for circumaural Peltor 3M earcups covering Lexie Lumen hearing aids with smartphone-facilitated in-situ audiometry. MPANLs were calculated by measuring the difference in attenuation between thresholds obtained with standard headphones and in-situ hearing aids. Experiment 2: Pure-tone frequency and intensity output of 14 same-model Lexie Lumen hearing aids were measured to determine inter-device reliability. Pure-tone stimuli were measured and analyzed to determine sound pressure levels in decibels and pure-tone frequency when connected to a test box 2cc coupler. Experiment 3: 85 adult participants were tested in a sound booth to determine the accuracy of automated in-situ pure-tone audiometry (PTA) compared to clinical PTA (500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 6000 Hz) facilitated by an audiologist. The first 39 participants were tested twice to determine test-retest reliability. Experiment 4: In a community setting, 144 adult participants were tested with automated in-situ audiometry facilitated by CHWs using a smartphone app. These participants were subsequently tested with automated mobile PTA (500, 1000, 2000, 4000 Hz). An additional 44 participants were tested twice to determine test-retest reliability., Results: Experiment 1: MPANLs of the Peltor 3M earcup-covered hearing aids were higher than standard headphones across all frequencies, ranging from 24 to 47.3 dB SPL. Experiment 2: Inter-device performance reliability was high, with all inter-device differences across all intensities and frequencies less than 3 dB. Frequency output was consistent and differed less than 0.7% between devices. Experiments 3 and 4: 85.2% and 83.3% of automated in-situ audiometry thresholds were within 10 dB of thresholds obtained in the sound booth and in a community setting, respectively. Acceptable test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was evident across all thresholds obtained in a sound booth (ICC = 0.85 to 0.93) and in a community setting (ICC = 0.83 to 0.97)., Conclusions: Smartphone-facilitated in-situ audiometry allows for reliable and valid community-based testing. A simple smartphone user interface and automated in-situ audiometry allow CHWs with minimal training to facilitate the testing. With the additional capability to program hearing aids via the smartphone after the initial test, this approach would have the potential to support widespread access to personalized hearing aid fittings facilitated by CHWs in low- and middle-income countries. This approach also supports self-fitting options based on in-situ thresholds, enabling testing and fitting via over the counter hearing aids., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Self-assessment instruments are commonly used in audiological rehabilitation. However, several studies highlight the lack of multidimensionality in existing outcome measures, with the consequence that they only partially capture aspects of functioning in everyday life for people living with hearing loss. This study aimed to develop and investigate the content validity of a self-assessment instrument based on the validated Brief International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Core Set for Hearing Loss., Design: The design was a two-part instrument development study. The first part focused on the item-generation process of the instrument, named the Hearing and Functioning in Everyday Life Questionnaire (HFEQ) during an experts' workshop. The second part focused on international content validation of the instrument using group interviews. Strategic sampling was used and 30 adults with hearing loss from India, South Africa, and the United States participated in the group interviews., Results: The expert's workshop resulted in the first version of the HFEQ containing 30 items. The results from group interviews show that the content of the HFEQ was considered to be valid concerning its relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility. A majority (73%) of the HFEQ items were perceived by the participants as relevant and easy to comprehend. For the remaining 27% of the items, the content was perceived to be relevant in all countries, but some terms and expressions were reported to require rewording or clearer examples. These modifications will be made in the next step of the development process., Conclusion: Content validation of the HFEQ demonstrates promising results, with participants perceiving the content as relevant and comprehensible. Further psychometric validation is required to investigate other psychometric properties, such as construct validity and reliability. The HFEQ has the potential to become a valuable new instrument for assessing everyday functioning in people with hearing loss in audiological rehabilitation and in research., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The digits-in-noise test (DIN) is a popular self-test measure that has traditionally been used to screen for hearing loss by providing either a pass or refer result. Standard approaches either tested each ear monaurally or used a binaural diotic version where identical digits and noise were presented simultaneously to both ears. Recently, a dichotic, antiphasic version was developed, increasing sensitivity of the DIN to unilateral or asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and conductive hearing loss (CHL). The purpose of this study was to determine predictors and normative ranges of the antiphasic and diotic DIN and to determine if a combination of diotic and antiphasic DIN could accurately categorize hearing into (1) normal, (2) bilateral SNHL, or (3) unilateral SNHL or CHL., Design: The analytical sample consisted of 489 participants between the ages of 18 and 92 years with varying types, symmetry, and degrees of hearing loss. Degree and type of hearing loss were determined based on standard clinical four-frequency (0.5-4 kHz) pure-tone air and bone conduction threshold averages. The sample consisted of bilateral normal hearing (n = 293), bilateral SNHL (n = 172), unilateral SNHL (n = 42), and CHL (n = 32). All participants (n = 489) first completed an antiphasic DIN (digit stimuli 180° out-of-phase between ears), while 393 of the sample also completed a diotic DIN. Two procedures were assessed for their ability to categorize hearing into one of the three hearing groups. The first used a fixed antiphasic cutoff combined with a cutoff formed by a linear combination of antiphasic and diotic speech recognition threshold (SRT) or binaural intelligibility-level difference., Results: Poorer ear pure-tone average was the strongest predictor of antiphasic DIN score, whereas better ear pure-tone average explained more of the variance in diotic SRT. The antiphasic DIN sensitivity and specificity was 90% and 84%, respectively, for detecting hearing loss, with outstanding area under the receiver operating characteristics values exceeding 0.93 to identify hearing loss in the poorer ear. The first fixed SRT cutoff procedure could categorize 75% of all participants correctly, while the second procedure increased correct categorization to 79%. False negative rates for both procedures were below 10%., Conclusions: A sequential antiphasic and diotic DIN could categorize hearing to a reasonable degree into three groups of (1) normal hearing; (2) bilateral SNHL; and (3) unilateral asymmetric SNHL or CHL. This type of approach could optimize care pathways using remote and contactless testing, by identifying unilateral SNHL and CHL as cases requiring medical referral. In contrast, bilateral SNHL cases could be referred directly to an audiologist, or nontraditional models like OTC hearing aids., Competing Interests: D.R.M. and D.W.S. have a relationship with the hearX Group (Pty) Ltd, which includes equity, consulting, and potential royalties. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The global digital transformation enables computational audiology for advanced clinical applications that can reduce the global burden of hearing loss. In this article, we describe emerging hearing-related artificial intelligence applications and argue for their potential to improve access, precision, and efficiency of hearing health care services. Also, we raise awareness of risks that must be addressed to enable a safe digital transformation in audiology. We envision a future where computational audiology is implemented via interoperable systems using shared data and where health care providers adopt expanded roles within a network of distributed expertise. This effort should take place in a health care system where privacy, responsibility of each stakeholder, and patients' safety and autonomy are all guarded by design., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: More than a billion adolescents and youngsters are estimated to be at risk of acquiring recreational noise-induced hearing loss (RNIHL) due to the unsafe use of personal audio systems. RNIHL is preventable; therefore, the present study aimed to determine (i) the accuracy and reliability of dbTrack (Westone) sound-level monitoring earphones and (ii) the effect of sound-level monitoring earphones with smartphone feedback and hearing-health information as an intervention to promote healthy listening behaviors in young adults., Design: The study consisted of two phases: the first phase investigated the accuracy and reliability of dbTrack sound-level monitoring earphones. Accuracy was determined by comparing earphone measurements to sound level meter measurements. Intradevice reliability was determined by comparing earphone measurements during test-retest conditions. Nineteen participants were recruited through convenience sampling to determine within-subject reliability by comparing in-ear sound levels measured by the earphones during test-retest conditions. For the second phase of the study, a single-group pretest-posttest design was utilized. Forty participants, recruited through snowball sampling, utilized the sound-level monitoring earphones with the accompanying dbTrack smartphone application for 4 weeks. The application's smartphone feedback was disabled during the first 2 weeks (pretest condition) and enabled during the last 2 weeks (posttest condition). Average daily intensities, durations, and sound dosages measured during pre- and posttest conditions were compared., Results: Phase 1 dbTrack earphone measurements were within 1 dB when compared with sound level meter measurements. Earphones were also within 1 dB in repeated measures across earphones and across participants. Phase 2 posttest average daily intensity decreased by 8.7 dB (18.3 SD), duration decreased by 7.6 minutes (46.6 SD), and sound dose decreased by 4128.4% (24965.5% SD). Differences in intensity and sound dose were significantly lower with a small and medium effect size, respectively., Conclusions: This study's preliminary data indicate that dbTrack (Westone) sound-level monitoring earphones with a calibrated in-ear microphone can reliably and accurately measure personal audio systems sound exposure. Preliminary results also suggest that feedback on sound exposure using the accurate sound-level monitoring earphones with the accompanying dbTrack application can potentially promote safe listening behavior in young adults and reduce the risk of acquiring an RNIHL., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Hearing loss is most commonly observed at high frequencies. High-frequency hearing loss (HFHL) precedes and predicts hearing loss at lower frequencies. It was previously shown that an automated, self-administered digits-in-noise (DIN) test can be sensitized for detection of HFHL by low-pass filtering the speech-shaped masking noise at 1.5 kHz. This study was designed to investigate whether sensitivity of the DIN to HFHL can be enhanced further using low-pass noise filters with higher cutoff frequencies., Design: The US-English digits 0 to 9, homogenized for audibility, were binaurally presented in different noise maskers including one broadband and three low-pass (cutoff at 2, 4, and 8 kHz) filtered speech-shaped noises. DIN-speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were obtained from 60 normal hearing (NH), and 40 mildly hearing impaired listeners with bilateral symmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Standard and extended high-frequency audiometric pure-tone averages (PTAs) were compared with the DIN-SRTs., Results: Narrower masking noise bandwidth generally produced better (more sensitive) mean DIN-SRTs. There were strong and significant correlations between SRT and PTA in the hearing impaired group. Lower frequency PTALF 0.5,1, 2, 4 kHz had the highest correlation and the steepest slope with SRTs obtained from the 2-kHz filter. Higher frequency PTAHF 4,8,10,12.5 kHz correlated best with SRTs obtained from 4- and 8-kHz filtered noise. The 4-kHz low-pass filter also had the highest sensitivity (92%) and equally highest (with the 8-kHz filter) specificity (90%) for detecting an average PTAHF of 20 dB or more., Conclusions: Of the filters used, DIN sensitivity to higher frequency hearing loss was greatest using the 4-kHz low-pass filter. These results suggest that low-pass filtered noise may be usefully substituted for broadband noise to improve earlier detection of HFHL using DIN., Competing Interests: D.W.S. is a co-founder, lead inventor and shareholder, and D.R.M. is a scientific advisor and shareholder of the hearX Group. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To explore the factors influencing the uptake of cochlear implants in adults, determine the impact of each factor, and to conceptualize the journey to implantation from a multistakeholder perspective., Design: Concept mapping was used to integrate input from multiple stakeholders, each with their own experience and expertise. This mixed participatory method collects qualitative and quantitative data collection and enables further quantitative analysis. There were two participant cohorts: clients (cochlear implant recipients, candidates, and family members) and professionals (cochlear implant audiologists, ear, nose, and throat surgeons, administration staff, managers. and manufacturer representatives). A total of 93 people participated in the study: client cohort (n = 60, M age = 66.60 years) and professional cohort (n = 33, M age = 45.24 years). Participants brainstormed statements in response to the question "What influences people's decision to get/not get a cochlear implant?" They subsequently grouped the statements and named each group. They rated each statement as to its impact on the decision and prioritized the need for each to be changed/improved using a five-point Likert scale. Multidimensional scaling was used to produce a visual representation of the ideas and their relationship in the form of concepts. Further analysis was conducted to determine the differences between the cohorts, subcohorts, and concepts., Results: One hundred ten unique statements were generated and grouped into six concepts which either directly affected the client or their environment. These concepts were: external influences (awareness and attitude of non-implant professionals about uptake, cost, logistics, the referral pathway, public awareness); uncertainties, beliefs, and fears (fears, negative effect of word of mouth, unsuccessful previous ear surgery, cosmetics of the device, misunderstanding of how a cochlear implant functions, eligibility for an implant and outcomes after implantation); health problems (mental and physical health); hearing difficulties (social, emotional, and communication impacts of hearing loss, severity of hearing loss, benefit from and experience with hearing aids); implant professionals (implant team's attitude, knowledge and relationship with clients, quality of overall service); and goals and support (clients 'hearing desires and goals, motivation, positive impact of word of mouth, family support, having a cochlear implant mentor. The six concepts fell into two overarching domains: the client-driven domain with four concepts and the external domain with two concepts. The mean rating of concepts in terms of impact on a client's decision to get an implant ranged from 2.24 (external influences, the main barrier) to 4.45 (goals and support, the main driver). Ratings significantly differed between the client and professional cohorts., Conclusions: This study increases our understanding of the factors, which influence a client's decision choose a cochlear implant as a hearing treatment. It also provides new information on the influence of the other stakeholders on the client journey. The magnitude of the generated statements in the client-driven domain highlights the pivotal role of individualized care in clinical settings in influencing a client's decision and the need for the professionals to understand a client's needs and expectations. A client's persistent hearing difficulties, goals, and support network were identified as drivers to the uptake of cochlear implants. However, the barriers identified highlight the need for a collaborative multi- and interdisciplinary approach to raise awareness in and educate non-implant hearing professionals about the cochlear implant process, as well as providing information to empower clients to make educated decisions and consider a cochlear implant as a hearing management option.

Objectives: The digits-in-noise test (DIN) has become increasingly popular as a consumer-based method to screen for hearing loss. Current versions of all DINs either test ears monaurally or present identical stimuli binaurally (i.e., diotic noise and speech, NoSo). Unfortunately, presentation of identical stimuli to each ear inhibits detection of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), and neither diotic nor monaural presentation sensitively detects conductive hearing loss (CHL). After an earlier finding of enhanced sensitivity in normally hearing listeners, this study tested the hypothesis that interaural antiphasic digit presentation (NoSπ) would improve sensitivity to hearing loss caused by unilateral or asymmetric SNHL, symmetric SNHL, or CHL., Design: This cross-sectional study recruited adults (18 to 84 years) with various levels of hearing based on a 4-frequency pure-tone average (PTA) at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. The study sample was comprised of listeners with normal hearing (n = 41; PTA ≤ 25 dB HL in both ears), symmetric SNHL (n = 57; PTA > 25 dB HL), unilateral or asymmetric SNHL (n = 24; PTA > 25 dB HL in the poorer ear), and CHL (n = 23; PTA > 25 dB HL and PTA air-bone gap ≥ 20 dB HL in the poorer ear). Antiphasic and diotic speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were compared using a repeated-measures design., Results: Antiphasic DIN was significantly more sensitive to all three forms of hearing loss than the diotic DIN. SRT test-retest reliability was high for all tests (intraclass correlation coefficient r > 0.89). Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for detection of hearing loss (>25 dB HL) was higher for antiphasic DIN (0.94) than for diotic DIN (0.77) presentation. After correcting for age, PTA of listeners with normal hearing or symmetric SNHL was more strongly correlated with antiphasic (rpartial[96] = 0.69) than diotic (rpartial = 0.54) SRTs. Slope of fitted regression lines predicting SRT from PTA was significantly steeper for antiphasic than diotic DIN. For listeners with normal hearing or CHL, antiphasic SRTs were more strongly correlated with PTA (rpartial[62] = 0.92) than diotic SRTs (rpartial[62] = 0.64). Slope of the regression line with PTA was also significantly steeper for antiphasic than diotic DIN. The severity of asymmetric hearing loss (poorer ear PTA) was unrelated to SRT. No effect of self-reported English competence on either antiphasic or diotic DIN among the mixed first-language participants was observed., Conclusions: Antiphasic digit presentation markedly improved the sensitivity of the DIN test to detect SNHL, either symmetric or asymmetric, while keeping test duration to a minimum by testing binaurally. In addition, the antiphasic DIN was able to detect CHL, a shortcoming of previous monaural or binaurally diotic DIN versions. The antiphasic DIN is thus a powerful tool for population-based screening. This enhanced functionality combined with smartphone delivery could make the antiphasic DIN suitable as a primary screen that is accessible to a large global audience.

Objectives: This study determined the effect of hearing loss and English-speaking competency on the South African English digits-in-noise hearing test to evaluate its suitability for use across native (N) and non-native (NN) speakers., Design: A prospective cross-sectional cohort study of N and NN English adults with and without sensorineural hearing loss compared pure-tone air conduction thresholds to the speech reception threshold (SRT) recorded with the smartphone digits-in-noise hearing test. A rating scale was used for NN English listeners' self-reported competence in speaking English. This study consisted of 454 adult listeners (164 male, 290 female; range 16 to 90 years), of whom 337 listeners had a best ear four-frequency pure-tone average (4FPTA; 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) of ≤25 dB HL., Results: A linear regression model identified three predictors of the digits-in-noise SRT, namely, 4FPTA, age, and self-reported English-speaking competence. The NN group with poor self-reported English-speaking competence (≤5/10) performed significantly (p < 0.01) poorer than the N and NN (≥6/10) groups on the digits-in-noise test. Screening characteristics of the test improved with separate cutoff values depending on English-speaking competence for the N and NN groups (≥6/10) and NN group alone (≤5/10). Logistic regression models, which include age in the analysis, showed a further improvement in sensitivity and specificity for both groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.962 and 0.903, respectively)., Conclusions: Self-reported English-speaking competence had a significant influence on the SRT obtained with the smartphone digits- in-noise test. A logistic regression approach considering SRT, self-reported English-speaking competence, and age as predictors of best ear 4FPTA >25 dB HL showed that the test can be used as an accurate hearing screening tool for N and NN English speakers. The smartphone digits-in-noise test, therefore, allows testing in a multilingual population familiar with English digits using dynamic cutoff values that can be chosen according to self-reported English-speaking competence and age.

Objective: To evaluate the performance of smartphone-based hearing screening with the hearScreen application in terms of sensitivity, specificity, referral rates, and time efficiency at two primary health care clinics., Design: Nonprobability purposive sampling was used at both clinics. A total of 1236 participants (mean age: 37.8 ± SD 17.9 and range 3 to 97 years; 71.3% female) were included in the final analysis. Participants were screened using the hearScreen application following a two-step screening protocol and diagnostic pure-tone audiometry to confirm hearing status., Results: Sensitivity and specificity for smartphone screening was 81.7 and 83.1%, respectively, with a positive and negative predictive value of 87.6 and 75.6%, respectively. Sex [χ(1, N = 126) = 0.304, p > 0.05] and race [χ(1, N = 126) = 0.169, p > 0.05)] had no significant effect on screening outcome for children while for adults age (p < 0.01; β = 0.04) and sex (p = 0.02; β = -0.53) had a significant effect on screening outcomes with males more likely to fail. Overall referral rate across clinics was 17.5%. Initial screening test times were less than a minute (48.8 seconds ± 20.8 SD) for adults and slightly more than a minute for children (73.9 seconds ± 44.5 SD)., Conclusions: The hearScreen smartphone application provides time-efficient identification of hearing loss with adequate sensitivity and specificity for accurate testing at primary health care settings.

Objectives: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the validity (test-retest reliability and accuracy) of automated threshold audiometry compared with the gold standard of manual threshold audiometry was conducted., Design: A systematic literature review was completed in peer-reviewed databases on automated compared with manual threshold audiometry. Subsequently a meta-analysis was conducted on the validity of automated audiometry. A multifaceted approach, covering several databases and using different search strategies was used to ensure comprehensive coverage and to cross-check search findings. Databases included: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and PubMed with a secondary search strategy reviewing references from identified reports. Reports including within-subject comparisons of manual and automated threshold audiometry were selected according to inclusion/exclusion criteria before data were extracted. For the meta-analysis weighted mean differences (and standard deviations) on test-retest reliability for automated compared with manual audiometry were determined to assess the validity of automated threshold audiometry., Results: In total, 29 reports on automated audiometry (method of limits and the method of adjustment techniques) met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Most reports included data on adult populations using air conduction testing with limited data on children, bone conduction testing, and the effects of hearing status on automated audiometry. Meta-analysis test-retest reliability for automated audiometry was within typical test-retest variability for manual audiometry. Accuracy results on the meta-analysis indicated overall average differences between manual and automated air conduction audiometry (0.4 dB; 6.1 SD) to be comparable with test-retest differences for manual (1.3 dB; 6.1 SD) and automated (0.3 dB; 6.9 SD) audiometry. Nosignificant differences (p > 0.01; summarized data analysis of variance) were seen in any of the comparisons between test-retest reliability of manual and automated audiometry compared with differences between manual and automated audiometry., Conclusions: Automated audiometry provides an accurate measure of hearing threshold, but validation data are still limited for (a) automated bone conduction audiometry; (b) automated audiometry in children and difficult-to-test populations; and (c) different types and degrees of hearing loss., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)