Yi Ying, Wang Xian-Ren, Xiong Qin, Xiong Guan-Xia
Otorhinolaryngology Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Sci Prog. 2025 Jan-Mar;108(1):368504251324348. doi: 10.1177/00368504251324348.
In this study, we sought to validate the effectiveness of an automated audiometry system in quiet (AA) and noisy environments (AA-N) by comparing the air pure-tone thresholds obtained by AA to those obtained by traditional manual audiometry (MA).
In this cross-sectional study, 150 participants with or without hearing loss were tested (age: 11-84 years; female: 57.3%). Air conduction thresholds were assessed by MA, AA, and AA-N in a quiet or noisy sound booth.
In participants without hearing loss, 94.5% and 96% of the threshold comparisons differed between MA versus AA and AA versus AA-N within 10 dB HL or less. In participants with hearing loss, there was no statistically significant difference between the three testing conditions at any frequency ( > 0.05). The hearing threshold difference in the poor hearing ear in participants with a bilateral difference ≥40 dB HL was -15 and +15 dB HL; however, this difference was not statistically significant when excluding participants with tinnitus.
Automatic audiometry can accurately estimate hearing thresholds and screen for hearing loss even in noisy environments. Nevertheless, the algorithm must be corrected when patients experience tinnitus.
在本研究中，我们试图通过比较自动听力测定系统在安静环境（AA）和嘈杂环境（AA-N）中获得的气导纯音阈值与传统手动听力测定（MA）获得的阈值，来验证该自动听力测定系统的有效性。
在这项横断面研究中，对150名有或无听力损失的参与者进行了测试（年龄：11 - 84岁；女性：57.3%）。在安静或嘈杂的隔音室中通过MA、AA和AA-N评估气导阈值。
在无听力损失的参与者中，MA与AA以及AA与AA-N之间94.5%和96%的阈值比较在10 dB HL或更低范围内存在差异。在有听力损失的参与者中，在任何频率下三种测试条件之间均无统计学显著差异（>0.05）。双侧差异≥40 dB HL的参与者中听力较差耳的听力阈值差异为-15和+15 dB HL；然而，在排除耳鸣患者后，这种差异无统计学意义。
即使在嘈杂环境中，自动听力测定也能准确估计听力阈值并筛查听力损失。然而，当患者出现耳鸣时，算法必须进行校正。
