Extended High-Frequency Audiometry Using the Wireless Automated Hearing Test System Compared to Manual Audiometry in Children and Adolescents.
Chelsea M Blankenship, Lindsey M Hickson, Tera Quigley and 3 others
PMID 39722183WHAT IT FOUND
A wireless automated hearing test gave much better thresholds than manual audiometry, suggesting it is not interchangeable.
However, testing outside a sound booth was comparable to inside. Do not use this device to replace standard clinical hearing assessments.
Key findings
01Automated thresholds were significantly better (lower) than manual thresholds in the sound booth, with mean differences of 4.3 to 10.3 dB in conventional frequencies and 6.6 to 20.7 dB in extended high frequencies.
02The automated test missed half of the hearing losses detected by manual audiometry, showing 50% sensitivity for hearing loss.
03Thresholds measured outside the sound booth were comparable to those inside, agreeing within 10 dB for 84% of measurements, except at the lowest frequency (0.25 kHz).
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
The study used different algorithms for the two methods (Békésy-like 2 dB step for WAHTS vs. modified Hughson-Westlake 5 dB step for manual), which contributes to the threshold differences. Ambient noise was not monitored continuously during the office-based testing, which could have affected results. The sample size was small (28 participants) and included children with varying degrees of hearing loss, but the lack of sensitivity to hearing loss is a critical flaw for clinical use. Results apply only to the WAHTS system and may not generalize to other automated audiometers.
Declared interests
The WAHTS system and TabSINT software were provided by Creare LLC. The study was part of a larger longitudinal project funded by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the 'better' thresholds from the automated test as evidence of improved hearing or a more sensitive device. The automated test systematically missed hearing losses that manual audiometry detected, meaning it is not accurate for diagnosis.