Comparing the Accuracy and Speed of Manual and Tracking Methods of Measuring Hearing Thresholds.
Gayla L Poling, Theresa J Kunnel, Sumitrajit Dhar
PMID 27232075WHAT IT FOUND
The standard manual method and an automated tracking method produced similar hearing thresholds, but the manual method was faster.
Two participants took very long with tracking.
Key findings
01Thresholds from the manual and tracking methods were similar within sessions and across sessions.
02Within sessions, manual thresholds were slightly higher (~5 dB) than tracking thresholds, but the difference was not statistically significant.
03Tracking took longer than manual to complete all thresholds for all but one participant, and two participants were exceptionally slow.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only ten participants were tested, and the paper calls it a preliminary exploration. All participants were adults aged 19 to 47 years, so results may not apply to children or older adults. Data were collected from one ear only, so the comparison may not extend to both ears in routine testing. Some high-frequency responses were missing because subjects did not respond at the equipment output limit, nominally 105 dB SPL, which varied by frequency. The study did not test a telehealth system or clinical patient outcomes; it compared two measurement methods in a sound booth. Two subjects had very slow tracking because they kept pressing the button well below threshold.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that automated tracking is a faster replacement for manual audiometry. In this small study, tracking took longer than the manual method for all but one participant, and the threshold values were similar.