A treatise on the thresholds of interoctave frequencies: 1500, 3000, and 6000 Hz.

BACKGROUND

For the past 50+ years, audiologists have been taught to measure the pure-tone thresholds at the interoctave frequencies when the thresholds at adjacent octave frequencies differ by 20 dB or more. Although this so-called 20 dB rule is logical when enhanced audiometric resolution is required, the origin of the rule is elusive, and a thorough literature search failed to find supporting scientific data.

PURPOSE

This study purposed to examine whether a 20 dB difference between thresholds at adjacent octave frequencies is the critical value for whether the threshold of the interoctave frequency should be measured. Along this same line of questioning is whether interoctave thresholds can be predicted from the thresholds of the adjacent or bounding octave frequencies instead of measured, thereby saving valuable time.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Retrospective, descriptive, correlational, and cross-sectional.

STUDY SAMPLE

Audiograms from over a million veterans provided the data, which were archived at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Denver Acquisition and Logistics Center.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from the left and right ears were independently evaluated. For each ear three interoctave frequencies (1500, 3000, and 6000 Hz) were studied. For inclusion, thresholds at the interoctave frequency and the two bounding octave frequencies had to be measurable, which produced unequal numbers of participants in each of the six conditions (2 ears by 3 interoctave frequencies). Age tags were maintained with each of the six conditions.

RESULTS

Three areas of analyses were considered. First, relations among the octave-frequency thresholds were examined. About 62% of the 1000-2000 Hz threshold differences were ≥20 dB, whereas about 74% of the 4000-8000 Hz threshold differences were <20 dB. About half of the threshold differences between 2000 and 4000 Hz were <20 dB and half were >20 dB. There was an inverse relation between frequency and the percent of negative slopes between octave-frequency thresholds, ranging from 89% at 1500 Hz to 54% at 6000 Hz. The majority of octave-frequency pairs demonstrated poorer thresholds for the higher frequency of the pair. Second, interoctave frequency thresholds were evaluated using the median metric. As the interoctave frequency increased from 1500 to 6000 Hz, the percent of thresholds at the interoctave frequencies that were not equal to the median threshold increased from ∼9.5% (1500 Hz) to 15.6% (3000 Hz) to 28.2% (6000 Hz). Bivariate plots of the interoctave thresholds and the mean octave-frequency thresholds produced 0.85-0.91 R² values and 0.79-0.92 dB/dB slopes. Third, the predictability of the interoctave thresholds from the mean thresholds of the bounding octave frequencies was evaluated. As expected, as the disparity between octave-frequency thresholds increased, the predictability of the interoctave threshold decreased; for example, using a ±5 dB criterion at 1500 Hz, 53% of the thresholds were ±5 dB when the octave thresholds differed by ≥20 dB, whereas 77% were ±5 dB when the octave thresholds differed by <20 dB.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings support the 20 dB rule for testing interoctave frequency thresholds and suggest the rule could be increased to 25 dB or more with little adverse effect.