Lina Motlagh Zadeh, Veronica Brennan, De Wet Swanepoel, Li Lin, David R Moore
{"title":"远程自我报告和噪声言语测量可预测临床听阈。","authors":"Lina Motlagh Zadeh, Veronica Brennan, De Wet Swanepoel, Li Lin, David R Moore","doi":"10.1080/14992027.2024.2387291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Developments in smartphone technology and the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the feasibility and need for remote, but reliable hearing tests. Previous studies used remote testing but did not directly compare results in the same listeners with standard lab or clinic testing. This study investigated validity and reliability of remote, self-administered digits-in-noise (remote-DIN) compared with lab-based, supervised (lab-DIN) testing. Predictive validity was further examined in relation to a commonly used self-report, Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ-12), and lab-based, pure tone audiometry.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>DIN speech reception thresholds (SRTs) of adults (18-64 y/o) with normal hearing (NH, N = 16) and hearing loss (HL, N = 18), were measured using English-language digits (0-9), binaurally presented as triplets in one of four speech-shaped noise maskers (broadband, low-pass filtered at 2, 4, 8 kHz) and two phases (diotic, antiphasic).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>High, significant intraclass correlation coefficients indicated strong internal consistency of remote-DIN SRTs, which also correlated significantly with lab-DIN SRTs. There was no significant mean difference between remote- and lab-DIN on any tests. NH listeners had significantly higher SSQ scores and remote- and lab-DIN SRTs than listeners with HL. All versions of remote-DIN SRTs correlated significantly with pure-tone-average (PTA), with the 2-kHz filtered test being the best predictor, explaining 50% of the variance in PTA. SSQ total score also significantly and independently predicted PTA (17% of variance) and all test versions of the remote-DIN, except the antiphasic BB test.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study underscores the effectiveness of remote DIN test and SSQ-12 in assessing auditory function. These findings suggest the potential for wider access to reliable hearing assessment, particularly in remote or underserved communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":13759,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remote self-report and speech-in-noise measures predict clinical audiometric thresholds.\",\"authors\":\"Lina Motlagh Zadeh, Veronica Brennan, De Wet Swanepoel, Li Lin, David R Moore\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14992027.2024.2387291\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Developments in smartphone technology and the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the feasibility and need for remote, but reliable hearing tests. Previous studies used remote testing but did not directly compare results in the same listeners with standard lab or clinic testing. This study investigated validity and reliability of remote, self-administered digits-in-noise (remote-DIN) compared with lab-based, supervised (lab-DIN) testing. Predictive validity was further examined in relation to a commonly used self-report, Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ-12), and lab-based, pure tone audiometry.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>DIN speech reception thresholds (SRTs) of adults (18-64 y/o) with normal hearing (NH, N = 16) and hearing loss (HL, N = 18), were measured using English-language digits (0-9), binaurally presented as triplets in one of four speech-shaped noise maskers (broadband, low-pass filtered at 2, 4, 8 kHz) and two phases (diotic, antiphasic).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>High, significant intraclass correlation coefficients indicated strong internal consistency of remote-DIN SRTs, which also correlated significantly with lab-DIN SRTs. There was no significant mean difference between remote- and lab-DIN on any tests. NH listeners had significantly higher SSQ scores and remote- and lab-DIN SRTs than listeners with HL. All versions of remote-DIN SRTs correlated significantly with pure-tone-average (PTA), with the 2-kHz filtered test being the best predictor, explaining 50% of the variance in PTA. SSQ total score also significantly and independently predicted PTA (17% of variance) and all test versions of the remote-DIN, except the antiphasic BB test.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study underscores the effectiveness of remote DIN test and SSQ-12 in assessing auditory function. These findings suggest the potential for wider access to reliable hearing assessment, particularly in remote or underserved communities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Audiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Audiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2024.2387291\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2024.2387291","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:智能手机技术的发展和 COVID-19 的流行突显了远程但可靠的听力测试的可行性和必要性。以前的研究使用了远程测试,但没有将同一听者的测试结果与标准实验室或诊所测试进行直接比较。本研究对远程自测噪声中数字(remote-DIN)与实验室监督(lab-DIN)测试的有效性和可靠性进行了比较。此外,还结合常用的自我报告、言语、空间和听力质量(SSQ-12)以及实验室纯音测听,对预测有效性进行了进一步研究:设计:测量听力正常(NH,16 人)和听力损失(HL,18 人)成年人(18-64 岁/年)的 DIN 言语接收阈值(SRTs):高而显著的类内相关系数表明远程 DIN SRT 具有很强的内部一致性,它与实验室 DIN SRT 也有显著的相关性。在任何测试中,远程听力数据和实验室听力数据之间都没有明显的平均差异。正常听力者的 SSQ 分数以及远程和实验室 DIN SRT 都明显高于正常听力者。所有版本的远程 DIN SRTs 都与纯音平均值 (PTA) 显著相关,其中 2 kHz 滤波测试的预测效果最好,可解释 PTA 变异的 50%。SSQ 总分对 PTA(占方差的 17%)和所有远程 DIN 测试版本(抗相位 BB 测试除外)也有明显的独立预测作用:本研究强调了远程 DIN 测试和 SSQ-12 在评估听觉功能方面的有效性。这些研究结果表明,特别是在偏远或服务不足的社区,有可能更广泛地进行可靠的听力评估。
Remote self-report and speech-in-noise measures predict clinical audiometric thresholds.
Objective: Developments in smartphone technology and the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the feasibility and need for remote, but reliable hearing tests. Previous studies used remote testing but did not directly compare results in the same listeners with standard lab or clinic testing. This study investigated validity and reliability of remote, self-administered digits-in-noise (remote-DIN) compared with lab-based, supervised (lab-DIN) testing. Predictive validity was further examined in relation to a commonly used self-report, Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ-12), and lab-based, pure tone audiometry.
Design: DIN speech reception thresholds (SRTs) of adults (18-64 y/o) with normal hearing (NH, N = 16) and hearing loss (HL, N = 18), were measured using English-language digits (0-9), binaurally presented as triplets in one of four speech-shaped noise maskers (broadband, low-pass filtered at 2, 4, 8 kHz) and two phases (diotic, antiphasic).
Results: High, significant intraclass correlation coefficients indicated strong internal consistency of remote-DIN SRTs, which also correlated significantly with lab-DIN SRTs. There was no significant mean difference between remote- and lab-DIN on any tests. NH listeners had significantly higher SSQ scores and remote- and lab-DIN SRTs than listeners with HL. All versions of remote-DIN SRTs correlated significantly with pure-tone-average (PTA), with the 2-kHz filtered test being the best predictor, explaining 50% of the variance in PTA. SSQ total score also significantly and independently predicted PTA (17% of variance) and all test versions of the remote-DIN, except the antiphasic BB test.
Conclusions: This study underscores the effectiveness of remote DIN test and SSQ-12 in assessing auditory function. These findings suggest the potential for wider access to reliable hearing assessment, particularly in remote or underserved communities.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Audiology is committed to furthering development of a scientifically robust evidence base for audiology. The journal is published by the British Society of Audiology, the International Society of Audiology and the Nordic Audiological Society.