Blankenship Chelsea M, Hickson Lindsey M, Quigley Tera, Larsen Erik, Lin Li, Hunter Lisa L
Division of Patient Services Research, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Ear Hear. 2025;46(3):782-795. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001621. Epub 2024 Dec 26.
Valid wireless automated Békésy-like audiometry (ABA) outside a sound booth that includes extended high frequencies (EHF) would increase access to monitoring programs for individuals at risk for hearing loss, particularly those at risk for ototoxicity. The purpose of the study was to compare thresholds obtained with (1) manual audiometry using an Interacoustics Equinox and modified Hughson-Westlake 5 dB threshold technique to automated audiometry using the Wireless Automated Hearing Test System (WAHTS) and a Békésy-like 2 dB threshold technique inside a sound booth, and (2) ABA measured in the sound booth to ABA measured outside the sound booth.
Cross-sectional study including 28 typically developing children and adolescents (mean = 14.5 years; range = 10 to 18 years). Audiometric thresholds were measured from 0.25 to 16 kHz with manual audiometry inside the sound booth and with ABA measured both inside and outside the sound booth in counterbalanced order.
ABA thresholds measured inside the sound booth were overall about 5 dB better compared with manual thresholds in the conventional frequencies (0.25 to 8 kHz). In the EHFs (10 to 16 kHz), a larger threshold difference was observed, where ABA thresholds were overall about 14 dB better compared with manual thresholds. The majority of ABA thresholds measured outside the sound booth were within ±10 dB of ABA thresholds measured inside the sound booth (conventional: 86%; EHF: 80%). However, only 69% of ABA thresholds measured inside the sound booth were within ±10 dB of manual thresholds in the conventional frequencies and only 32% of ABA thresholds measured inside the sound booth were within ±10 dB of manual thresholds in the EHFs.
These results indicate that WAHTS ABA results in better thresholds in conventional frequencies than manual audiometry in children and adolescents, consistent with previous studies in adults. Hearing thresholds for the EHF were better when measured with WAHTS ABA compared with manual audiometry, likely due to different transducer-related calibration values that are not age-adjusted. Additional studies of WAHTS automated Békésy-like EHF thresholds that include healthy pediatric participants are needed to establish age-appropriate normative thresholds for clinical application in monitoring programs for noise-induced hearing loss and/or ototoxicity.
在隔音室之外进行有效的无线自动化贝凯西式听力测定（ABA），且涵盖扩展高频（EHF），这将增加听力损失风险个体，尤其是那些有耳毒性风险个体获取监测项目的机会。本研究的目的是比较以下两种情况下获得的阈值：（1）在隔音室内使用Interacoustics Equinox和改良的休森 - 韦斯特莱克5 dB阈值技术进行的手动听力测定与使用无线自动化听力测试系统（WAHTS）和贝凯西式2 dB阈值技术进行的自动化听力测定；（2）在隔音室内测量的ABA与在隔音室外测量的ABA。
横断面研究，纳入28名发育正常的儿童和青少年（平均年龄 = 14.5岁；范围 = 10至18岁）。在隔音室内通过手动听力测定以及在隔音室内外以平衡顺序进行ABA测量，测量0.25至16 kHz的听力阈值。
在常规频率（0.25至8 kHz）下，与手动阈值相比，在隔音室内测量的ABA阈值总体上约好5 dB。在扩展高频（10至16 kHz）中，观察到更大的阈值差异，其中ABA阈值总体上比手动阈值约好14 dB。在隔音室外测量的大多数ABA阈值在隔音室内测量的ABA阈值的±10 dB范围内（常规频率：86%；扩展高频：80%）。然而，在常规频率下，只有69%的在隔音室内测量的ABA阈值在手动阈值的±10 dB范围内，在扩展高频中，只有32%的在隔音室内测量的ABA阈值在手动阈值的±10 dB范围内。
这些结果表明，对于儿童和青少年，WAHTS ABA在常规频率下产生的阈值比手动听力测定更好，这与先前对成年人的研究一致。与手动听力测定相比，使用WAHTS ABA测量扩展高频的听力阈值更好，这可能是由于未进行年龄调整的不同换能器相关校准值所致。需要对包括健康儿科参与者在内的WAHTS自动化贝凯西式扩展高频阈值进行更多研究，以建立适用于临床应用的年龄特异性标准阈值，用于监测噪声性听力损失和/或耳毒性。
