{"title":"视觉强化听力学与牵张试验临床特征比较。","authors":"M L Gliddon, A M Martin, R Green","doi":"10.3109/03005364000000104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare aspects of visual reinforcement audiometry (VRA) and the distraction test (DT), the two most commonly used behavioural tests of hearing for young children. The number of assessments completed, time taken, parental opinion and levels of minimum responses were compared in a group of 20 infants (mean age 17.7 months; SD 4.7 months; range 12-25 months) who had been selected from those referred from a local second-tier community audiology service. Each infant was assessed with each test following set protocols and a balanced design on two occasions separated by one week. Parental opinion was determined by application of two questionnaires, one after each session. There was no difference in the number of minimum response levels (MRLs) measured by the two tests. However, if a VRA protocol using three MRLs was assumed then the assessment was completed successfully in a significantly greater number of subjects with VRA. VRA took, on average, two minutes less than the DT to measure six MRLs. Most of the subject sample had normal hearing as defined by both tests. However, where MRLs were >30 dB HL for at least one of the tests, the DT elicited responses at significantly higher levels than VRA, suggesting that in these subjects the DT under-estimated hearing sensitivity. Seventy per cent of parents selected VRA when asked to choose between the tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":75616,"journal":{"name":"British journal of audiology","volume":"33 6","pages":"355-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/03005364000000104","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of some clinical features of visual reinforcement audiometry and the distraction test.\",\"authors\":\"M L Gliddon, A M Martin, R Green\",\"doi\":\"10.3109/03005364000000104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare aspects of visual reinforcement audiometry (VRA) and the distraction test (DT), the two most commonly used behavioural tests of hearing for young children. The number of assessments completed, time taken, parental opinion and levels of minimum responses were compared in a group of 20 infants (mean age 17.7 months; SD 4.7 months; range 12-25 months) who had been selected from those referred from a local second-tier community audiology service. Each infant was assessed with each test following set protocols and a balanced design on two occasions separated by one week. Parental opinion was determined by application of two questionnaires, one after each session. There was no difference in the number of minimum response levels (MRLs) measured by the two tests. However, if a VRA protocol using three MRLs was assumed then the assessment was completed successfully in a significantly greater number of subjects with VRA. VRA took, on average, two minutes less than the DT to measure six MRLs. Most of the subject sample had normal hearing as defined by both tests. However, where MRLs were >30 dB HL for at least one of the tests, the DT elicited responses at significantly higher levels than VRA, suggesting that in these subjects the DT under-estimated hearing sensitivity. Seventy per cent of parents selected VRA when asked to choose between the tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of audiology\",\"volume\":\"33 6\",\"pages\":\"355-65\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/03005364000000104\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of audiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3109/03005364000000104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of audiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/03005364000000104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
摘要
本研究的目的是比较视觉强化测听(VRA)和分心测试(DT)的各个方面,这是两种最常用的幼儿听力行为测试。在一组20名婴儿(平均年龄17.7个月;SD 4.7个月;范围12-25个月),从本地二级社区听力学服务转介的人士中挑选。每个婴儿都按照设定的方案和平衡的设计在两次测试中进行评估,每次测试间隔一周。父母的意见是通过应用两份调查问卷来确定的,每次会议后一份。两种测试测量的最小反应水平(MRLs)的数量没有差异。然而,如果假设使用三个核磁共振成像的VRA方案,那么在更多的VRA受试者中评估成功完成。VRA测量6个核磁共振的平均时间比DT少2分钟。根据两项测试的定义,大多数受试者的听力正常。然而,当至少一项测试的MRLs >30 dB HL时,DT引起的反应水平明显高于VRA,这表明在这些受试者中DT低估了听力敏感性。当被要求在两种测试中做出选择时,70%的家长选择了VRA。
A comparison of some clinical features of visual reinforcement audiometry and the distraction test.
The aim of this study was to compare aspects of visual reinforcement audiometry (VRA) and the distraction test (DT), the two most commonly used behavioural tests of hearing for young children. The number of assessments completed, time taken, parental opinion and levels of minimum responses were compared in a group of 20 infants (mean age 17.7 months; SD 4.7 months; range 12-25 months) who had been selected from those referred from a local second-tier community audiology service. Each infant was assessed with each test following set protocols and a balanced design on two occasions separated by one week. Parental opinion was determined by application of two questionnaires, one after each session. There was no difference in the number of minimum response levels (MRLs) measured by the two tests. However, if a VRA protocol using three MRLs was assumed then the assessment was completed successfully in a significantly greater number of subjects with VRA. VRA took, on average, two minutes less than the DT to measure six MRLs. Most of the subject sample had normal hearing as defined by both tests. However, where MRLs were >30 dB HL for at least one of the tests, the DT elicited responses at significantly higher levels than VRA, suggesting that in these subjects the DT under-estimated hearing sensitivity. Seventy per cent of parents selected VRA when asked to choose between the tests.