Assessment of Two Types of Headphones Used in a Tablet-Based Automated Hearing Screening Method in Different Noise Conditions.

IF 1.1 Q3 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology Pub Date : 2026-03-11 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0045-1811515
Camila P Aquino, Clayton H Rocha, Camila M Rabelo, Seisse Gabriela Gandolfi Sanches, Carla G Matas, Alessandra G Samelli
{"title":"Assessment of Two Types of Headphones Used in a Tablet-Based Automated Hearing Screening Method in Different Noise Conditions.","authors":"Camila P Aquino, Clayton H Rocha, Camila M Rabelo, Seisse Gabriela Gandolfi Sanches, Carla G Matas, Alessandra G Samelli","doi":"10.1055/s-0045-1811515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the performance of two types of supra-aural headphones in both silence and noise in automated hearing screening in adults via tablet computers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Basic audiological assessments and audiometry screenings via tablet were conducted in silence and noise in 35 participants. The hearing screening application assesses frequencies of 1, 2, and 4 kHz (20 dBHL) and 0.5 kHz (30 dBHL) in each ear separately. Two different headphones were tested: TDH 39 (Telephonics Corporation) and Sennheiser HD 280 PRO (Sennheiser) (with passive noise cancellation)-in silence, white noise, and cafeteria noise, emitted in a free field. The screening results were compared with the gold standard (audiometry).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results of the 35 participants with Sennheiser HD 280 PRO were compatible with the gold standard in the 3 situations. With TDH 39, the results of 33 individuals in silence and 34 in white noise were compatible with the gold standard. Both headphones, in automated screening in silence and noise, had 100% sensitivity, more than 93% specificity, and more than 94% accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both headphones performed well in the tablet automated hearing screening in the three situations. The HD 280 PRO performed better in silence and noise regarding specificity and accuracy. In cafeteria noise, there was no difference between the two headphones.</p>","PeriodicalId":13731,"journal":{"name":"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology","volume":"30 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12978948/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1811515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the performance of two types of supra-aural headphones in both silence and noise in automated hearing screening in adults via tablet computers.

Methods: Basic audiological assessments and audiometry screenings via tablet were conducted in silence and noise in 35 participants. The hearing screening application assesses frequencies of 1, 2, and 4 kHz (20 dBHL) and 0.5 kHz (30 dBHL) in each ear separately. Two different headphones were tested: TDH 39 (Telephonics Corporation) and Sennheiser HD 280 PRO (Sennheiser) (with passive noise cancellation)-in silence, white noise, and cafeteria noise, emitted in a free field. The screening results were compared with the gold standard (audiometry).

Results: The results of the 35 participants with Sennheiser HD 280 PRO were compatible with the gold standard in the 3 situations. With TDH 39, the results of 33 individuals in silence and 34 in white noise were compatible with the gold standard. Both headphones, in automated screening in silence and noise, had 100% sensitivity, more than 93% specificity, and more than 94% accuracy.

Conclusion: Both headphones performed well in the tablet automated hearing screening in the three situations. The HD 280 PRO performed better in silence and noise regarding specificity and accuracy. In cafeteria noise, there was no difference between the two headphones.

不同噪声条件下平板自动听力筛选方法中两种耳机的评估
目的:比较两种超耳耳机在成人平板电脑自动听力筛查中的静音和噪声性能。方法:对35例受试者进行无声和噪声环境下的听力学基本评估和听力学平板筛查。听力筛选应用程序分别评估每只耳朵的1、2和4 kHz (20 dBHL)和0.5 kHz (30 dBHL)频率。测试了两种不同的耳机:TDH 39 (Telephonics Corporation)和Sennheiser HD 280 PRO (Sennheiser)(具有被动降噪功能)——在自由场中发出静音、白噪声和自助餐厅噪声。筛选结果与金标准(听力学)进行比较。结果:35名受试者使用Sennheiser HD 280 PRO检测结果在3种情况下均符合金标准。在TDH 39下,沉默组33个个体和白噪声组34个个体的结果符合金标准。这两款耳机在静音和噪音的自动筛选中,都有100%的灵敏度,93%以上的特异性和94%以上的准确性。结论:两种耳机在平板电脑自动听力筛查中均表现良好。在特异性和准确性方面,HD 280 PRO在静音和噪音方面表现更好。在餐厅的噪音中,两种耳机没有区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
84
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书