Department of Otolaryngology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, USA.
Int J Audiol. 2010 Mar;49(3):185-94. doi: 10.3109/14992020903092608.
Three studies are reported assessing the validity of AMTAS, an automated method for obtaining an audiogram, including air- and bone-conduction thresholds (stimuli delivered by a forehead-placed transducer) with masking noise presented to the non-test ear. In Study 1, six subjects at each of three sites were tested using manual audiometry by two audiologists at each site. The mean differences between the audiograms for the paired audiologists provided a measure of the reliability of traditional audiometry. In Study 2, thirty subjects (5 normal hearing, 25 hearing impaired) were tested using AMTAS and manual audiometry. For air-conduction thresholds, AMTAS-manual differences were similar to inter-tester differences in Study 1, but for bone-conduction thresholds, the former were larger. Two possible sources of the greater differences were identified, (1) incorrect reference-equivalent threshold force levels for forehead bone conduction, and (2) a differential effect of middle-ear disease on forehead and mastoid bone-conduction thresholds. In Study 3, intersubject variability was studied for forehead and mastoid bone-conduction thresholds. The results indicate similar variability for the two placement sites.
报告了三项研究,评估了 AMTAS 的有效性,这是一种自动获取听力图的方法,包括空气和骨传导阈值(通过放置在前额的换能器传递刺激),同时对非测试耳施加掩蔽噪声。在研究 1 中,三个地点的每个地点有 6 名受试者,每个地点由两名听力学家进行手动听力测试。配对听力学家的听力图之间的平均差异提供了传统听力测试可靠性的衡量标准。在研究 2 中,使用 AMTAS 和手动听力测试对 30 名受试者(5 名正常听力,25 名听力受损)进行了测试。对于空气传导阈值,AMTAS 与手动差异与研究 1 中的测试者间差异相似,但对于骨传导阈值,前者更大。确定了更大差异的两个可能来源,(1)前额骨传导的参考等效阈值力水平不正确,以及(2)中耳疾病对前额和乳突骨传导阈值的差异影响。在研究 3 中,研究了前额和乳突骨传导阈值的受试者间变异性。结果表明,两种放置位置的变异性相似。