Search

Background: A temporal resolution test in addition to the pure-tone audiogram may be of great clinical interest because of its relevance in speech perception and expected relevance in hearing aid fitting. Larsby and Arlinger developed an appropriate clinical test, but this test uses a Békèsy-tracking procedure for estimating masked thresholds in stationary and interrupted noise to assess release of masking (RoM) for temporal resolution. Generally the Hughson-Westlake up-down procedure is used in the clinic to measure the pure-tone thresholds in quiet. A uniform approach will facilitate clinical application and might be appropriate for RoM measurements as well. Because there is no golden standard for measuring the RoM in the clinic, we examine in the present study the Hughson-Westlake up-down procedure to measure the RoM and compare the results with the Békèsy-tracking procedure. Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to examine the differences between a Békèsy-tracking procedure and the Hughson-Westlake up-down procedure for estimating masked thresholds in stationary and interrupted noise to assess RoM. Research Design: RoM is assessed in eight normal-hearing (NH) and ten hearing-impaired (HI) listeners through both methods. Results from both methods are compared with each other and with predicted thresholds from a model. Data Analysis: Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, paired t tests. Results: Some differences between the two methods were found. We used a model to quantify the results of the two measurement procedures. The results of the Hughson-Westlake procedure were clearly better in agreement with the model than the results of the Békèsy-tracking procedure. Furthermore, the Békèsy-tracking procedure showed more spread in the results of the NH listeners than the Hughson-Westlake procedure. Conclusions: The Hughson-Westlake procedure seems to be an applicable alternative for measuring RoM for temporal resolution in the clinical audiological practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being used extensively in the search for pathoanatomical factors contributing to low back pain (LBP) such as Modic changes (MC). However, it remains unclear whether clinical findings can identify patients with MC. The purpose of this explorative study was to assess the predictive value of six clinical tests and three questionnaires commonly used with patients with low-back pain (LBP) on the presence of Modic changes (MC). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from Dutch military personnel in the period between April 2013 and July 2016. Questionnaires included the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. The clinical examination included (i) range of motion, (ii) presence of pain during flexion and extension, (iii) Prone Instability Test, and (iv) straight leg raise. Backward stepwise regression was used to estimate predictive value for the presence of MC and the type of MC. The exploration of clinical tests was performed by univariable logistic regression models. Results: Two hundred eighty-six patients were allocated for the study, and 112 cases with medical records and MRI scans were available; 60 cases with MC and 52 without MC. Age was significantly higher in the MC group. The univariate regression analysis showed a significantly increased odds ratio for pain during flexion movement (2.57 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08–6.08]) in the group with MC. Multivariable logistic regression of all clinical symptoms and signs showed no significant association for any of the variables. The diagnostic value of the clinical tests expressed by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values showed, for all the combinations, a low area under the curve (AUC) score, ranging from 0.41 to 0.53. Single-test sensitivity was the highest for pain in flexion: 60% (95% CI: 48.3–70.4). Conclusion: No model to predict the presence of MC, based on clinical tests, could be demonstrated. It is therefore not likely that LBP patients with MC are very different from other LBP patients and that they form a specific subgroup. However, the study only explored a limited number of clinical findings and it is possible that larger samples allowing for more variables would conclude differently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the present study was to investigate how well the virtual psychophysical measures of spatial hearing from the preliminary auditory profile predict self-reported spatial-hearing abilities., Design: Virtual spatial-hearings tests (conducted unaided, via headphones) and a questionnaire were administered in five centres in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. Correlations and stepwise linear regression models were calculated among a group of hearing-impaired listeners., Study Sample: Thirty normal-hearing listeners aged 19-39 years, and 72 hearing-impaired listeners aged 22-91 years with a broad range of hearing losses, including asymmetrical and mixed hearing losses., Results: Several significant correlations (between 0.24 and 0.54) were found between results of virtual psychophysical spatial-hearing tests and self-reported localization abilities. Stepwise linear regression analyses showed that the minimum audible angle (MAA) test was a significant predictor for self-reported localization abilities (5% extra explained variance), and the spatial speech reception threshold (SRT) benefit test for self-reported listening to speech in spatial situations (6% extra explained variance)., Conclusions: The MAA test and spatial SRT benefit test are indicative measures of everyday binaural functioning. The binaural SRT benefit test was not found to predict self-reported spatial-hearing abilities.