Ear and Hearing最新文献

{"title":"Objective Determination of Site-of-Lesion in Auditory Neuropathy.","authors":"Julien Zanin,Gary Rance","doi":"10.1097/aud.0000000000001589","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001589","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEAuditory neuropathy (AN), a complex hearing disorder, presents challenges in diagnosis and management due to limitations of current diagnostic assessment. This study aims to determine whether diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be used to identify the site and severity of lesions in individuals with AN.METHODSThis case-control study included 10 individuals with AN of different etiologies, 7 individuals with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), 5 individuals with cochlear hearing loss, and 37 control participants. Participants were recruited through the University of Melbourne's Neuroaudiology Clinic and the Murdoch Children's Research Institute specialist outpatient clinics. Diffusion-weighted MRI data were collected for all participants and the auditory pathways were evaluated using the fixel-based analysis metric of apparent fiber density. Data on each participant's auditory function were also collected including hearing thresholds, otoacoustic emissions, auditory evoked potentials, and speech-in-noise perceptual ability.RESULTSAnalysis of diffusion-weighted MRI showed abnormal white matter fiber density in distinct locations within the auditory system depending on etiology. Compared with controls, individuals with AN due to perinatal oxygen deprivation showed no white matter abnormalities ( p > 0.05), those with a neurodegenerative conditions known/predicted to cause VIII cranial nerve axonopathy showed significantly lower white matter fiber density in the vestibulocochlear nerve ( p < 0.001), while participants with NF1 showed lower white matter fiber density in the auditory brainstem tracts ( p = 0.003). In addition, auditory behavioral measures of speech perception in noise and gap detection were correlated with fiber density results of the VIII nerve.CONCLUSIONSDiffusion-weighted MRI reveals different patterns of anatomical abnormality within the auditory system depending on etiology. This technique has the potential to guide management recommendations for individuals with peripheral and central auditory pathway abnormality.","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142256603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Preliminary Validation of Experienced Ageism Measures With Four Populations in the United States.","authors":"Laura Nyblade,Rachel D Stelmach,Jessica S West,Xianxin Zhu,Khalida Saalim,Ching-Heng Wu,Melissa A Stockton,Elizabeth Troutman Adams,John D Kraemer","doi":"10.1097/aud.0000000000001475","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001475","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESAgeism appears widely across the globe and poses an important threat to older people's well-being and health. With respect to hearing health, experiences, perceptions, and fear of ageism can delay the diagnosis of hearing loss, reduce pursuit of hearing care, and fuel reluctance to wear a hearing device. Ageism intertwines with hearing loss stigma, which potentially deepens the negative effects of both; however, little evidence exists to quantify the effects of the intersection of ageism and hearing loss stigma. This lack of data on both hearing loss stigma and ageism, and their intersection, may stem from the lack of validated measures for both. Therefore, as part of a parent study to develop and preliminarily validate d/Deaf and hard of hearing stigma measures, we also adapted and preliminarily validated measures of both experienced and observed ageism.DESIGNWe adapted four ageism measures through a literature review, expert discussions, and cognitive interviews and validated them in the United States through self-administered online surveys with convenience samples of (1) people aged 60 and older who became d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) after developing language or in adulthood (\"acquired\" d/DHH), (2) care partners of people aged 60 or older who are d/DHH (acquired), (3) health care providers, and (4) the general population. For each of the scales, we applied exploratory factor analysis and estimated scale reliability with ordinal α.RESULTSFor the population of persons over age 60 who are d/DHH (acquired) (N = 146), nine social stigma items and four employment discrimination items loaded well onto two separate factors, one which measures social stigma and one which measures employment discrimination. All loadings were >0.7. The two factors were moderately correlated at 0.428. For care partners of people aged 60 or older who are d/DHH (N = 72), nine items loaded well onto a single factor, with loadings between 0.650 and 0.936 and an ordinal α of 0.95. Among the general population (N = 312), 10 items loaded cleanly onto a single factor, with loadings between 0.702 and 0.919 and an ordinal α of 0.96. For the health care providers (N = 203), 11 items loaded well onto a single factor, with loadings between 0.541 and 0.874. For these three populations, each of the single factors measure social stigma.CONCLUSIONSAgeism threatens the health and wellbeing of older people in both high- and low-income countries. Validated measures of ageism are necessary to understand the relationship between ageism, d/DHH stigma and the well-being of older adults and to design effective ageism-reduction and mitigation interventions. This preliminary validated set of experienced ageism measures offers a starting point for more studies that not only further validate these measures but are larger in scale, occur in more diverse settings, and provide insights into the experience of ageism and its effects on the health and well-being of older adults.","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":"71 1","pages":"62S-69S"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142256573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Preliminary Validation of Hearing Device-Related Stigma Measures in Four United States Populations.","authors":"Jessica S West,Rachel D Stelmach,Howard W Francis,Xianxin Zhu,Ching-Heng Wu,Melissa A Stockton,Elizabeth Troutman Adams,Gabriel Madson,John D Kraemer,Laura Nyblade","doi":"10.1097/aud.0000000000001539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001539","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESAlthough hearing devices such as cochlear implants and hearing aids often improve communication, many people who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) choose not to use them. Hearing device-related stigma, or negative societal beliefs about people who use hearing devices, often drives this decision. Although much research has documented the negative effects of hearing device-related stigma, no widely accepted, validated measure to quantify such stigma across populations currently exists. In this article, we describe the preliminary validation of four distinct but related scales measuring hearing device-related stigma in different populations, including people who use hearing devices and those close to them.DESIGNWe preliminarily validated four measures for quantifying hearing device-related stigma in different populations that were previously developed and refined through a literature review, Delphi interviews, cognitive interviews, and a pretest. We preliminarily validated these measures through self-administered online surveys in a convenience sample in the United States. Among participants who use a hearing device and who either (a) self-identified as being d/DHH before they developed language (lifelong; n = 78) or (b) those who self-identified as having acquired a d/DHH identity after they developed language (acquired n = 71), we validated an anticipated hearing device-related stigma scale (d/DHHS-LE-HDA). We validated three scales that measure perceived hearing device-related stigma observed by parents of children who are d/DHH and who use a hearing device (n = 79) (d/DHHS-P-HDPO), care partners of adults who are d/DHH and use a hearing device (n = 108) (d/DHHS-CP-HDPO), and health care providers (n = 203) (d/DHHS-HCP-HDSH). Exploratory factor analysis assessed the reliability of each measure.RESULTSEach of the four scales loaded onto one factor. Factor loadings for the eight-item scale measuring anticipated hearing device-related stigma among the two populations with lived experience ranged from 0.635 to 0.910, with an ordinal α of 0.93 in the lifelong d/DHH participants and 0.94 among the acquired d/DHH participants. The six-item scale of perceived stigma observed by parents had item loadings from 0.630 to 0.920 (α = 0.91). The nine-item scale of hearing device-related stigma observed by care partners had item loadings from 0.554 to 0.922 (α = 0.95). The eight-item scale of hearing device-related stigma reported by health care providers had item loadings from 0.647 to 0.941 (α = 0.89).CONCLUSIONSPreliminary validation results show that the four stigma measures perform well in their respective populations. The anticipated stigma scale performed similarly well for both lifelong d/DHH and acquired d/DHH, which suggests that it could perform well in different contexts. Future research should further validate the scales described here as well as measure hearing device-related stigma in different populations-including people who live i","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":"16 1","pages":"53S-61S"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142256644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Research Agenda and Applications for Preliminarily Validated Measures of d/Deaf and Hard of Hearing Stigma.","authors":"Rachel D Stelmach,Lawrence G Musa,Jessica S West,Margaret I Wallhagen,John D Kraemer,Howard W Francis,Melissa A Stockton,Catherine McMahon,Sherri L Smith,Laura Nyblade","doi":"10.1097/aud.0000000000001491","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001491","url":null,"abstract":"In this special supplement of Ear and Hearing, we have presented preliminarily validated measures for stigma related to being d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) in the United States and Ghana. In this concluding article, we suggest avenues for the future refinement and use of these measures. First, the measures should be further validated. Second, they should be used to assess the current state of d/DHH stigma and the importance of different kinds of stigma in different populations, which should in turn drive the development of interventions to reduce d/DHH stigma. Third, these measures can assist in evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of those interventions. The evidence from this work can then inform investment cases and cost-of-condition studies, which will support advocacy efforts and policy development for reducing stigma and improving the lives of people who are d/DHH.","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":"50 1","pages":"70S-78S"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142256640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development and Preliminary Validation of Stigma Measures for Care Partners of Persons Who Are d/Deaf or Hard of Hearing.","authors":"Margaret I Wallhagen,John D Kraemer,Khalida Saalim,Elizabeth Troutman Adams,Rachel D Stelmach,Jessica S West,Jenny Jae Won Chung,Laura Nyblade","doi":"10.1097/aud.0000000000001540","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001540","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESA great deal of literature documents the significant demands, both physical and psychosocial, that care partners experience when providing care to persons with a range of health conditions. There is, however, far less research available on care partners of adult persons who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH). In response to this gap, the authors developed measures of d/DHH stigma among care partners as part of the work of the Lancet Commission on Hearing Loss' Measures, Models, and Stigma Reduction Subgroup. The measures examined in this article are part of a larger set of parallel measures to enable comparison of stigma measurement across groups.DESIGNThe present study describes the preliminary validation of five stigma scales specifically tailored for use to assess the prevalence and effect of stigma on the care partners of adult people who are d/DHH in the United States. Care partners in this context are defined broadly and can include spouses, partners, adult children, siblings, and friends of persons who are d/DHH. The scales describe the care partner's own assessment of how the person who is d/DHH experiences and perceives stigma as well as the care partner's own internalized, experienced, and perceived stigma as a result of their association with a person who is d/DHH. This latter set of three scales describes secondary stigma, or the stigma a person experiences related to their association with a member of a stigmatized group. Measures were developed through a process that included a literature review, Delphi groups with people who became d/DHH after they developed spoken language, cognitive interviews, and a pretest. An online, self-administered preliminary validation survey was conducted with 151 care partners.RESULTSResults support the internal reliability of each of the five stigma scales (ordinal α's all greater than 0.9) and that each scale is assessing a single factor.CONCLUSIONSAdditional testing is needed to confirm the validity of these measures. After further validation, they can be used to assess the prevalence and effect of stigma on care partners of persons who are d/DHH and to evaluate the success of interventions developed to address stigma and its effects both on the care partner and the person who is d/DHH and receiving the care.","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":"18 1","pages":"35S-41S"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142256604","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Editorial for the Special Supplement on \"Measure to understand: Tools to assess d/Deaf and hard of hearing stigma\": Assessment to Guide Stigma-Reducing Changes in Hearing Healthcare and Society.","authors":"M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller","doi":"10.1097/aud.0000000000001585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001585","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":"34 1","pages":"1S-3S"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142269159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development and Preliminary Validation of Scales to Measure Enacted, Perceived, and Experienced Hearing Loss Stigma in Health Care Settings.","authors":"Elizabeth Troutman Adams,Laura Nyblade,Gabriel Madson,Margaret Wallhagen,Sherri L Smith,Rachel D Stelmach,Howard W Francis","doi":"10.1097/aud.0000000000001541","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001541","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESQualitative evidence suggests that stigma experienced by people who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/DHH) can reduce willingness to engage with health services. Quantitative evidence remains lacking, however, about how health care providers (HCPs) perceive societal stigma toward people who are d/DHH, how HCPs might enact d/DHH stigma within provider-patient encounters, and what patients who are d/DHH share with providers about those patients' perceptions and experiences of stigma. Such quantitative evidence would allow HCPs to understand if and how stigma influences hearing health decisions made by people who are d/DHH. It could also shape practices to reduce d/DHH stigma within clinical encounters and guide providers in considering stigma as a driving force in their patients' hearing health care decisions. Building that evidence base requires validated quantitative measures. In response, the present study initiated an iterative process toward developing and preliminarily validating HCP self-report measures for different forms of d/DHH stigma. These measures draw upon HCPs' own perspectives, as well as their reports of secondhand information about stigma shared during clinical conversations. We developed and preliminary validated four measures: (1) provider-perceived stigma (HCPs' perceptions of the existence of negative attitudes and stereotypes toward d/DHH individuals in society), (2) provider-enacted stigma (self-reported subtle or indirect acts of stigma HCPs might commit during clinical encounters), (3) secondhand patient-experienced stigma (external acts of stigma reported to HCPs by patients who are d/DHH during clinical encounters), and (4) secondhand patient-perceived stigma (perceptions of negative attitudes and stereotypes reported to HCPs by patients who are d/DHH during clinical encounters).DESIGNScale items were extracted from a comprehensive literature review of stigma measures. Question stems and individual items were adapted for HCPs, cognitively tested on 5 HCPs, and pretested with 30 HCPs. The 4 scales were then validated on a sample of primary care providers and hearing care specialists (N = 204) recruited through an online survey. All data were collected in the United States.RESULTSWe conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the four proposed d/DHH stigma HCP stigma scales. Scale items loaded satisfactorily with ordinal alphas ranging between 0.854 and 0.944.CONCLUSIONSThe four measures developed and preliminarily validated in this study can provide opportunities for HCPs to develop a more nuanced understanding of stigma experienced and perceived by their patients who are d/DHH and how that stigma manifests across social contexts, including health care settings. Further, the ability to assess forms of d/DHH stigma in clinical encounters, as well as their association with patient disengagement and resistance to advanced hearing care, could lead to innovative stigma-reduction interventions. Such interventions cou","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":"13 1","pages":"42S-52S"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142256570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Does Childhood Cochlear Implantation Spill Over to Carers' Employment Status?","authors":"Rajan Sharma,Massimiliano Tani,Zhiming Cheng,Teresa Y C Ching,Vivienne Marnane,Silvia Mendolia,Bonny Parkinson","doi":"10.1097/aud.0000000000001588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001588","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESCarers of children with disabilities, especially primary carers, tend to have poorer labor market outcomes than carers of typically developing children. However, the extant literature has been largely silent on whether interventions for children's disabilities spill over to carers' employment outcomes, if at all. We aimed to fill this gap.DESIGNWe analyzed data from the Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment study, which is a unique panel dataset of Australian children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing (DHH). The Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment dataset includes information about 449 DHH children. We used 3 waves covering the same children at ages 0 to 3, 5 to 7, and 8 to 10 years during 2005 and 2018. We used a panel random-effects model, the use of which was supported by the Hausman specification test to control for time-invariant individual heterogeneity.RESULTSWe found that primary carers (typically mothers) of DHH children with cochlear implants (CI) were more likely to be employed relative to DHH children without a CI. The positive association was stronger among carers from a lower socioeconomic background.CONCLUSIONSThe association between childhood CI and carer employment may potentially be due to relaxed primary carers' time constraints to care for the child, increased self-efficacy, and reduced carer stress, enabling them to engage in other activities, including employment. Further research through large-scale, longitudinal studies is warranted to solidify the findings of this research.","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142256599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Roadmap to a Global Template for Implementation of Ototoxicity Management for Cancer Treatment.","authors":"Katharine Fernandez,Alex Hoetink,Dawn Konrad-Martin,Deborah Berndtson,Khaya Clark,Laura Dreisbach,James I Geller,Maria Valeria Goffi-Gomez,Amy Grosnik,Carmen Jamis,Kristin Knight,David S Lee,John Lee,Patricia Helena Pecora Liberman,Trisha Milnes,Annelot J M Meijer,Candice E Ortiz,Jennessa Rooker,Victoria A Sanchez,Mary M van den Heuvel-Eibrink,Carmen C Brewer,Gayla L Poling","doi":"10.1097/aud.0000000000001592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001592","url":null,"abstract":"Ototoxicity is among the adverse events related to cancer treatment that can have far-reaching consequences and negative impacts on quality-of-life for cancer patients and survivors of all ages. Ototoxicity management (OtoM) comprises the prevention, diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment, including rehabilitation and therapeutic intervention, of individuals who experience hearing loss, tinnitus, or balance/vestibular difficulties following exposures to ototoxic agents, including platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin, carboplatin) and cranial radiation. Despite the well-established physical, socioeconomic, and psychological consequences of hearing and balance dysfunction, there are no widely adopted standards for clinical management of cancer treatment-related ototoxicity. Consensus recommendations and a roadmap are needed to guide development of effective and feasible OtoM programs, direct research efforts, address the needs of caregivers and patients at all stages of cancer care and survivorship. Here we review current evidence and propose near-term to longer-term goals to advance OtoM in five strategic areas: (1) beneficiary awareness, empowerment, and engagement, (2) workforce enhancement, (3) program development, (4) policy, funding, and sustainability, and (5) research and evaluation. The goal is to identify needs and establish a roadmap to guide worldwide adoption of standardized OtoM for cancer treatment and improved outcomes for patients and survivors.","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142182426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Audiogram Estimation Performance Using Auditory Evoked Potentials and Gaussian Processes.","authors":"Michael Alexander Chesnaye,David Martin Simpson,Josef Schlittenlacher,Søren Laugesen,Steven Lewis Bell","doi":"10.1097/aud.0000000000001570","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001570","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESAuditory evoked potentials (AEPs) play an important role in evaluating hearing in infants and others who are unable to participate reliably in behavioral testing. Discriminating the AEP from the much larger background activity, however, can be challenging and time-consuming, especially when several AEP measurements are needed, as is the case for audiogram estimation. This task is usually entrusted to clinicians, who visually inspect the AEP waveforms to determine if a response is present or absent. The drawback is that this introduces a subjective element to the test, compromising quality control of the examination. Various objective methods have therefore been developed to aid clinicians with response detection. In recent work, the authors introduced Gaussian processes (GPs) with active learning for hearing threshold estimation using auditory brainstem responses (ABRs). The GP is attractive for this task, as it can exploit the correlation structure underlying AEP waveforms across different stimulus levels and frequencies, which is often overlooked by conventional detection methods. GPs with active learning previously proved effective for ABR hearing threshold estimation in simulations, but have not yet been evaluated for audiogram estimation in subject data. The present work evaluates GPs with active learning for ABR audiogram estimation in a sample of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired adults. This involves introducing an additional dimension to the GP (i.e., stimulus frequency) along with real-time implementations and active learning rules for automated stimulus selection.METHODSThe GP's accuracy was evaluated using the \"hearing threshold estimation error,\" defined as the difference between the GP-estimated hearing threshold and the behavioral hearing threshold to the same stimuli. Test time was evaluated using the number of preprocessed and artifact-free epochs (i.e., the sample size) required for locating hearing threshold at each frequency. Comparisons were drawn with visual inspection by examiners who followed strict guidelines provided by the British Society of Audiology. Twenty-two normal hearing and nine hearing-impaired adults were tested (one ear per subject). For each subject, the audiogram was estimated three times: once using the GP approach, once using visual inspection by examiners, and once using a standard behavioral hearing test.RESULTSThe GP's median estimation error was approximately 0 dB hearing level (dB HL), demonstrating an unbiased test performance relative to the behavioral hearing thresholds. The GP additionally reduced test time by approximately 50% relative to the examiners. The hearing thresholds estimated by the examiners were 5 to 15 dB HL higher than the behavioral thresholds, which was consistent with the literature. Further testing is still needed to determine the extent to which these results generalize to the clinic.CONCLUSIONSGPs with active learning enable automatic, real-time ABR audiogram esti","PeriodicalId":55172,"journal":{"name":"Ear and Hearing","volume":"122 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142182424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}