Masked speech recognition by 6-13-year-olds with early-childhood otitis media: effects of acoustic condition and otologic history.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate speech recognition in school-age children with early-childhood otitis media (OM) in conditions with noise or speech maskers with or without interaural differences. To also investigate the effects of three otologic history factors. DESIGN: Using headphone presentation, speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) were measured with simple sentences. As maskers, stationary speech-shaped noise (SSN) or two-talker running speech (TTS) were used. The stimuli were presented in a monaural and binaural condition (SSN) or a co-located and spatially separated condition (TTS). Based on the available medical records, overall OM duration, OM onset age, and time since the last OM episode were estimated. STUDY SAMPLE: 6-13-year-olds with a history of recurrent OM (N = 42) or without any ear diseases (N = 20) with normal tympanograms and audiograms at the time of testing. RESULTS: Mixed-model regression analyses that controlled for age showed poorer SRTs for the OM group (Δ-value = 0.84 dB, p = 0.009). These appeared driven by the spatially separated, binaural, and monaural conditions. The OM group showed large inter-individual differences, which were unrelated to the otologic history factors. CONCLUSIONS: Early-childhood OM can affect speech recognition in different acoustic conditions. The effects of the otologic history warrant further investigation.

Aided Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Infants With Frequency-Specific Synthetic Speech Stimuli: Sensitivity, Repeatability, and Feasibility.

OBJECTIVES: The cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) test is a candidate for supplementing clinical practice for infant hearing aid users and others who are not developmentally ready for behavioral testing. Sensitivity of the test for given sensation levels (SLs) has been reported to some degree, but further data are needed from large numbers of infants within the target age range, including repeat data where CAEPs were not detected initially. This study aims to assess sensitivity, repeatability, acceptability, and feasibility of CAEPs as a clinical measure of aided audibility in infants. DESIGN: One hundred and three infant hearing aid users were recruited from 53 pediatric audiology centers across the UK. Infants underwent aided CAEP testing at age 3 to 7 months to a mid-frequency (MF) and (mid-)high-frequency (HF) synthetic speech stimulus. CAEP testing was repeated within 7 days. When developmentally ready (aged 7-21 months), the infants underwent aided behavioral hearing testing using the same stimuli, to estimate the decibel (dB) SL (i.e., level above threshold) of those stimuli when presented at the CAEP test sessions. Percentage of CAEP detections for different dB SLs are reported using an objective detection method (Hotellings T 2 ). Acceptability was assessed using caregiver interviews and a questionnaire, and feasibility by recording test duration and completion rate. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity for a single CAEP test when the stimuli were ≥0 dB SL (i.e., audible) was 70% for the MF stimulus and 54% for the HF stimulus. After repeat testing, this increased to 84% and 72%, respectively. For SL >10 dB, the respective MF and HF test sensitivities were 80% and 60% for a single test, increasing to 94% and 79% for the two tests combined. Clinical feasibility was demonstrated by an excellent >99% completion rate, and acceptable median test duration of 24 minutes, including preparation time. Caregivers reported overall positive experiences of the test. CONCLUSIONS: By addressing the clinical need to provide data in the target age group at different SLs, we have demonstrated that aided CAEP testing can supplement existing clinical practice when infants with hearing loss are not developmentally ready for traditional behavioral assessment. Repeat testing is valuable to increase test sensitivity. For clinical application, it is important to be aware of CAEP response variability in this age group.

The development of the Language-Independent Speech in Noise and Reverberation test (LISiNaR) and evaluation in listeners with English as a second language.

OBJECTIVE: Create a language-independent, ecologically valid auditory processing assessment and evaluate relative stimuli intelligibility in native and non-native English speakers. DESIGN: The Language-Independent Speech in Noise and Reverberation Test (LISiNaR) targets comprised consonant-vowel (CVCV) pseudo-words. Distractors comprised CVCVCVCV pseudo-words. Stimuli were presented over headphones using an iPad either face-to-face or remotely. Scoring occurred adaptively to establish a participant's speech reception threshold in noise (SRT). The listening environment was simulated using reverberant and anechoic head-related transfer functions. In four test conditions, targets originated from 0°. Distractors originated from either ±90°, ±67.5° and ±45° (spatially separated) or 0° azimuth (co-located). Reverberation impact (RI) was calculated as the difference in SRTs between the anechoic and reverberant conditions and spatial advantage (SA) as the difference between the spatially separated and co-located conditions. STUDY SAMPLE: Young adult native speakers of Australian (n = 24) and Canadian (25) and non-native English speakers (34). RESULTS: No significant effects of language occurred for the test conditions, RI or SA. A small but significant effect of delivery mode occurred for RI. Reverberation impacted SRT by 5 dB relative to anechoic conditions. CONCLUSION: Performance on LISiNaR is not affected by the native language or accent of groups tested in this study.

Do we need audiogram-based prescriptions? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Hearing aids are typically programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds and verified using real-ear measures. Developments in technology have resulted in a new category of direct-to-consumer devices, which are not necessarily programmed using the individual's audiometric thresholds. This review aimed to identify whether programming hearing aids using the individual's validated audiogram-based prescription, and verified using real-ear measures, results in better outcomes for adults with hearing loss. DESIGN: The review was registered in PROSPERO and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. STUDY SAMPLE: After screening more than 1370 records, seven experimental studies met the eligibility criteria. RESULTS: Studies were categorised under three methods of fitting: (i) comparative fitting evaluating different settings based on the beliefs of the audiologist; (ii) client choice of preset responses; and (iii) self-fit by adjustment. The findings suggest that using a prescription based on the individual's audiogram improves outcomes relative to the comparative and client choice fitting approaches. Self-adjustment during daily use may produce equivalent (or better) outcomes than an audiogram-based prescription. The quality of evidence for the outcomes ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: This review has highlighted the dearth of high-quality studies on which to make evidence-based decisions on hearing aid fitting methods.

Web- and app-based tools for remote hearing assessment: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Remote hearing screening and assessment may improve access to, and uptake of, hearing care. This review, the most comprehensive to date, aimed to (i) identify and assess functionality of remote hearing assessment tools on smartphones and online platforms, (ii) determine if assessed tools were also evaluated in peer-reviewed publications and (iii) report accuracy of existing validation data. DESIGN: Protocol was registered in INPLASY and reported according to PRISMA-Extension for Scoping Reviews. STUDY SAMPLE: In total, 187 remote hearing assessment tools (using tones, speech, self-report or a combination) and 101 validation studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality, functionality, bias and applicability of each app were assessed by at least two authors. RESULTS: Assessed tools showed considerable variability in functionality. Twenty-two (12%) tools were peer-reviewed and 14 had acceptable functionality. The validation results and their quality varied greatly, largely depending on the category of the tool. CONCLUSION: The accuracy and reliability of most tools are unknown. Tone-producing tools provide approximate hearing thresholds but have calibration and background noise issues. Speech and self-report tools are less affected by these issues but mostly do not provide an estimated pure tone audiogram. Predicting audiograms using filtered language-independent materials could be a universal solution.

Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Preschool Children for Hearing Loss in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: While all newborns in Australia are tested for congenital hearing loss through universal newborn hearing screening programs, some children will acquire hearing loss in their first five years of life. Delayed diagnosed or undiagnosed hearing loss in children can have substantial immediate- and long-term consequences. It can significantly reduce school readiness, language and communication development, social and emotional development, and mental health. It can also compromise lifetime educational achievements and employment opportunities and future economic contribution to society through lost productivity. The need for a universal hearing screening program for children entering their first year of primary school has been noted in two separate Australian Government hearing inquiries in the last decade. Sound Scouts is a hearing screening application (app) that tests for hearing loss in children using a tablet or mobile device, supervised by parents at home. It tests for sensorineural or permanent conductive hearing loss and central auditory processing disorder in children. In 2018 the Australian Government funded the roll-out of Sound Scouts to allow up to 600,000 children to test their hearing using Sound Scouts. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of screening 5-year-old children for hearing loss using Sound Scouts at home, compared with no screening. DESIGN: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of administering Sound Scouts over a 20-year time horizon. Testing accuracy was based on comparing Sound Scouts test results to clinical test results while other parameters were based on published data. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the Australian health care system. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Sound Scouts is estimated to result in an average incremental cost of A$61.02 and an average incremental increase in QALYs of 0.01. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$5392 per QALY gained, which is likely to be considered cost-effective by Australian decision makers. Screening with Sound Scouts was found to have a 96.2 per cent probability of being cost-effective using a threshold of A$60,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Using Sound Scouts to screen five-year-old children for hearing loss (at home) is likely to be cost-effective. Screening children using Sound Scouts will result in early identification and intervention in childhood hearing loss, thereby reducing early childhood disadvantage through cumulative gains in quality of life, education, and economic outcomes over their lifetime.

Development and Evaluation of a Language-Independent Test of Auditory Discrimination for Referrals for Cochlear Implant Candidacy Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to (1) develop a Language-independent Test of Auditory Discrimination (LIT-AD) between speech sounds so that people with hearing loss who derive limited speech perception benefits from hearing aids (HAs) may be identified for consideration of cochlear implantation and (2) examine the relationship between the scores for the new discrimination test and those of a standard sentence test for adults wearing either HAs or cochlear implants (CIs). DESIGN: The test measures the ability of the listener to correctly discriminate pairs of nonsense syllables, presented as sequential triplets in an odd-one-out format, implemented as a game-based software tool for self-administration using a tablet computer. Stage 1 included first a review of phonemic inventories in the 40 most common languages in the world to select the consonants and vowels. Second, discrimination testing of 50 users of CIs at several signal to noise ratios (SNRs) was carried out to generate psychometric functions. These were used to calculate the corrections in SNR for each consonant-pair and vowel combination required to equalize difficulty across items. Third, all items were individually equalized in difficulty and the overall difficulty set. Stage 2 involved the validation of the LIT-AD in English-speaking listeners by comparing discrimination scores with performance in a standard sentence test. Forty-one users of HAs and 40 users of CIs were assessed. Correlation analyses were conducted to examine test-retest reliability and the relationship between performance in the two tests. Multiple regression analyses were used to examine the relationship between demographic characteristics and performance in the LIT-AD. The scores of the CI users were used to estimate the probability of superior performance with CIs for a non-CI user having a given LIT-AD score and duration of hearing loss. RESULTS: The LIT-AD comprises 81 pairs of vowel-consonant-vowel syllables that were equalized in difficulty to discriminate. The test can be self-administered on a tablet computer, and it takes about 10 min to complete. The software automatically scores the responses and gives an overall score and a list of confusable items as output. There was good test-retest reliability. On average, higher LIT-AD discrimination scores were associated with better sentence perception for users of HAs (r = -0.54, p <0.001) and users of CIs (r = -0.73, p <0.001). The probability of superior performance with CIs for a certain LIT-AD score was estimated, after allowing for the effect of duration of hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: The LIT-AD could increase access to CIs by screening for those who obtain limited benefits from HAs to facilitate timely referrals for CI candidacy evaluation. The test results can be used to provide patients and professionals with practical information about the probability of potential benefits for speech perception from cochlear implantation. The test will need to be evaluated for speakers of languages other than English to facilitate adoption in different countries.

The one-up one-down adaptive (staircase) procedure in speech-in-noise testing: Standard error of measurement and fluctuations in the track.

The one-up one-down adaptive (staircase or up-down) procedure is often used to estimate the speech recognition threshold (SRT) in speech-in-noise testing. This article provides a brief historical overview of the one-up one-down procedure in psychophysics, discussing the groundbreaking early work that is still relevant to clinical audiology and scientific research. Next, this article focuses on two aspects of the one-up one-down adaptive procedure: first, the standard error of measurement (SEM) and, second, the fluctuations in the track [i.e., the standard deviation of the signal-to-noise ratios of the stimuli within the track (SDtrack)]. Simulations of ideal and non-ideal listeners and experimental data are used to determine and evaluate different relationships between the parameters slope of the speech recognition function, SRT, SEM, and SDtrack. Hearing loss and non-ideal behavior (inattentiveness, fatigue, and giving up when the task becomes too difficult) slightly increase the average value of SDtrack. SDtrack, however, poorly discriminates between reliable and unreliable SRT estimates.

Separating the Causes of Listening Difficulties in Children.

Auditory processing disorder, defined here as a deficit in the way sounds are analyzed by the brain, has remained a controversial topic within audiology for decades. Some of the controversy concerns what it is called. More substantively, even its existence has been questioned. That view has likely emerged because there has not been sufficient rigor in determining when difficulty in understanding speech has been the consequence of some type of auditory processing deficit, versus when it is the consequence of a cognitive deficit or a language deficit. This article suggests that the field use the term "listening difficulty" as an umbrella term to indicate a reported deficit in recognizing sounds or understanding speech, one possible cause of which is an auditory processing disorder. Other possible causes are hearing deficits, cognitive deficits, and language deficits. This article uses a plausible, and hopefully noncontroversial, model of speech understanding that comprises auditory processing, speech processing, and language processing, all potentially affected by the degree of attention applied and the listener's memory ability. In a fresh approach to the construction of test batteries, the stages of the model are linked to tests designed to assess either all or selected parts of the processes involved. For two of the stages, a listener's performance is quantified as the additional signal to noise ratio that he or she needs to function equivalently to his or her age peers. Subtraction of the deficits revealed by each test enables the contributions of each processing stage to a listening deficit to be quantified. As a further novel contribution, the impact of memory and attention on each test score is quantitatively allowed for, by an amount that depends on each test's dependence on memory and attention. Attention displayed during the test is estimated from the fluctuations in performance during the test. The article concludes with a summary of the research that must be conducted before the structured tests can be used to quantify the extent to which different potential causes of listening difficulties are responsible for real-life difficulties in an individual child.

The Relations Between Auditory Processing Scores and Cognitive, Listening and Reading Abilities.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate associations between auditory processing abilities, cognitive abilities, listening ability, and reading ability in children. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study involving 155 children (105 referred for auditory processing assessment and 50 with no reported listening concerns) aged between 7 and 13 years. Each child was assessed on auditory processing tests, cognitive tests, and a reading test. Additional data on reading ability were provided by the reading score from a national test. Questionnaires about the child's listening ability were completed by a parent, a teacher, and the child. RESULTS: Structural equation models relating auditory processing abilities, cognitive abilities, listening ability, and reading ability were developed. There was evidence that listening and reading abilities were associated with cognitive abilities when adjusting for auditory processing abilities, but little evidence that listening and reading abilities were associated with auditory processing abilities when adjusting for cognitive abilities. CONCLUSIONS: It should not be assumed that auditory processing tests and cognitive tests measure separate abilities. When investigating the association between auditory processing abilities and real-world abilities, it is important to adjust for cognitive abilities. Children with listening difficulties should undergo cognitive assessments in addition to auditory processing assessments.

English language and language-free detection of spatial processing disorders in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare speech reception thresholds in noise measured with the Listening in Spatialised Noise - Universal test (LiSN-U; which requires no English knowledge) with those measured from the relevant conditions of the LiSN - Sentences test (LiSN-S; a test requiring knowledge of English) in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. A second aim was to compare the ability of the two tests to detect spatial processing disorder. DESIGN: Participants completed audiometry, the LiSN-S, and the LiSN-U. STUDY SAMPLE: 90 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged six to 14 years tested in a school setting. RESULTS: Strong correlations were found between speech reception thresholds in noise for the two tests. A moderate correlation was found between the difference scores that each test uses to detect spatial processing disorder. Consistent diagnoses of whether a child had spatial processing disorder or not on both tests were found for 72% of children. CONCLUSIONS: The moderate-to-strong relationships and agreement between diagnoses found for the LiSN-S and LiSN-U show promise for the LiSN-U being used as a tool to investigate spatial processing disorder in children, without requiring the test to use a language familiar to the children being tested.

Determining unilateral or bilateral hearing aid preference in adults: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite high rates of bilateral hearing aid fitting globally, a number of adults continue to reject one hearing aid. The current study aimed to identify a clinically suitable tool for determining, pre-fitting, which clients might prefer one hearing aid.Study Sample: Ninety-five new adult hearing aid candidates, aged 49-87 years, were assessed prior to a first hearing aid fitting. Sixty-eight participants adhered to the prescribed protocol for both bilateral and unilateral hearing aid use. DESIGN: Performance was assessed on a modified version of the Listening in Spatialised Noise - Sentences test (LiSN-S), the Dichotic Digits difference Test, the Experiential Hearing Aid simulator, and the Grooved Pegboard Test. All participants were fitted bilaterally, but were instructed to alternate between unilateral and bilateral hearing aid use over fourteen weeks post-fitting. Participants' wearing preferences were assessed via a short questionnaire. RESULTS: 78% of participants expressed an overall preference for bilateral hearing aid use. Only the LiSN-S bilateral advantage test outcomes significantly correlated with overall wearing preference. CONCLUSIONS: Although the LiSN-S bilateral advantage score related to overall wearing preference, the accuracy of the predictor was too low to warrant implementation of this test prior to hearing aid fitting. The current practice of recommending bilateral hearing aid use continues to be the best option for clinicians.

Listening in Spatialized Noise - Universal Test (LiSN-U) test-retest reliability study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess test-retest reliability of the Listening in Spatialised Noise - Universal test (LiSN-U). DESIGN: Test-retest reliability study. Participants completed the LiSN-U twice, four to eight weeks apart. Study sample: Test-retest reliability was analysed for 23 adults and 109 children. RESULTS: ANOVA showed significant group average score improvement on LiSN-U spatially-separated and co-located conditions on retest (by 1.3 and 0.9 dB, respectively), but not on the difference between them (spatial advantage). Critical difference scores for children were -3.6 dB for the spatially-separated condition, -5.8 dB for the co-located condition, and 5.5 dB for spatial advantage. Critical difference scores for adults were -2.0 dB for the spatially-separated condition, -4.9 dB for the co-located condition, and 5.4 dB for spatial advantage. A correlation analysis was run to determine the relationship between test and retest speech reception thresholds. The correlation was r = 0.63, p < 0.001 for the spatially-separated condition, r = 0.50, p < 0.001 for the co-located condition, and r = 0.37, p < 0.001 for the spatial advantage measure. CONCLUSIONS: The LiSN-U, which is potentially useable for speakers of any language, shows mean test-retest difference and test-retest reliability comparable to other tests that have proven useful in clinical practice.

Analysis of data from the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) using Bayesian Item Response Theory.

OBJECTIVE: IOI-HA response data are conventionally analysed assuming that the ordinal responses have interval-scale properties. This study critically considers this assumption and compares the conventional approach with a method using Item Response Theory (IRT). DESIGN: A Bayesian IRT analysis model was implemented and applied to several IOI-HA data sets. STUDY SAMPLE: Anonymised IOI-HA responses from 13273 adult users of one or two hearing aids in 11 data sets using the Australian English, Dutch, German and Swedish versions of the IOI-HA. RESULTS: The raw ordinal responses to IOI-HA items do not represent values on interval scales. Using the conventional rating sum as an overall score introduces a scale error corresponding to about 10 - 15% of the true standard deviation in the population. Some interesting and statistically credible differences were demonstrated among the included data sets. CONCLUSIONS: It is questionable to apply conventional statistical measures like mean, variance, t-tests, etc., on the raw IOI-HA ratings. It is recommended to apply only nonparametric statistical test methods for comparisons of IOI-HA results between groups. The scale error can sometimes cause incorrect conclusions when individual results are compared. The IRT approach is recommended for analysis of individual results.

Uptake of internet-delivered UK adult hearing assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate uptake of the internet-based hearing test, with respect to the 11% of UK adults that have hearing loss but do not use hearing aids. DESIGN: Feasibility study in a primary care practice in the North of England. STUDY SAMPLE: Adults aged 50-74 years were sent postal invitations to complete an internet hearing test (N = 600). Those who completed the test, those who failed (>35 dB HL in the better ear) and demographic correlates (age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic level) were recorded. RESULTS: 11.2% of invited adults completed the hearing test and 7.7% failed it. Those who took the test tended to have a higher socioeconomic background than those who did not. There were no differences in age, ethnicity or gender between those who took the test and those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: An estimated 70% (7.7%/11.0%) of adults with hearing loss but who do not use hearing aids took the test. Uptake was equitable across most demographic categories. Uptake was high among a study sample that was substantially more deprived than the general UK population. Internet-based hearing testing offers an efficient paradigm for identifying hearing loss.

Correlating performance on the Listening in Spatialised Noise - Sentences test (LiSN-S) with the Listening in Spatialised Noise - Universal test (LiSN-U).

Objective: The aim of this study was to correlate 6- to 7-year-old children's results on each condition of the Listening in Spatialised Noise - Sentences test (LiSN-S) with the new language-independent version, the Listening in Spatialised Noise - Universal test (LiSN-U), to examine the strength of the relationship between them and with memory in a small sample of typically developing children.Design: Correlational analysis.Study samples: Sixteen typically developing 6- to 7-year-old children completed the LiSN-S and LiSN-U as well as the Test of Auditory Processing Skills - Third Edition (TAPS-3) number memory forward and reversed subtests which assess short-term memory and working memory, respectively.Results: Moderate positive correlations were found between LiSN-S and LiSN-U spatially separated conditions (though this did not reach significance), and co-located conditions. Correlations between the LiSN-S and LiSN-U conditions and number memory forward and reversed subtests were not significant.Conclusion: This study shows a moderate relationship between the LiSN-S and LiSN-U when the distractors and target speech are co-located. A study with a larger sample of participants is needed to further understand the relationship between the two tests, especially for the spatially separated condition.

Automated cortical auditory response detection strategy.

Objective: This study describes a new automated strategy to determine the detection status of an electrophysiological response.Design: Response, noise and signal-to-noise ratio of the cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) were characterised. Detection rules were defined: when to start testing, when to conduct subsequent statistical tests using residual noise as an objective criterion, and when to stop testing.Study sample: Simulations were run to determine optimal parameters on a large combined CAEP data set collected in 45 normal-hearing adults and 17 adults with hearing loss.Results: The proposed strategy to detect CAEPs is fully automated. The first statistical test is conducted when the residual noise level is equal to or smaller than 5.1 µV. The succeeding Hotelling's T2 statistical tests are conducted using pre-defined residual noise levels criteria ranging from 5.1 to 1.2 µV. A rule was introduced allowing to stop testing before the maximum number of recorded epochs is reached, depending on a minimum p-value criterion.Conclusion: The proposed framework can be applied to systems which involves detection of electrophysiological responses in biological systems containing background noise. The proposed detection algorithm which optimise sensitivity, specificity, and recording time has the potential to be used in clinical setting.

Adoption, use and non-use of hearing aids: a robust estimate based on Welsh national survey statistics.

Objective: To report a robust measure of the proportion of adults who do not use their hearing aids.Design: Data on hearing aid use was extracted from national household survey data, from 2004 to 2018 in Wales, UK.Study sample: A representative sample of 10,000 to 16,000 adults per year.Results: Self-reported hearing difficulty increased smoothly from 14 to 16% during the 12 years when survey administration remained unchanged. The proportion reporting that they had tried a hearing aid increased from 5 to 7% and stabilised at this level since 2011. The proportion who reported using their hearing aid most of the time increased from 47 to 52% during the 15-year period. The proportion who did not use their hearing aids at all decreased from 21 to 18% over the same period.Conclusions: In this extensively-surveyed population, approximately 20% of adults currently do not use their hearing aids at all, 30% use them some of the time and the remaining 50% most of the time. Hearing aids are valued by many, as judged by use, but there is substantial room for improvement. Inclusion of questions on use within a large-scale, regular national survey enables the collection of demonstrably reliable data.

Detection of hearing problems in Aboriginal and Torres strait islander children: a comparison between clinician-administered and self-administrated hearing tests.

Objective: This study evaluated the agreement of self-administered tests with clinician-administered tests in detecting hearing loss and speech-in-noise deficits in Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander children.Design: Children completed clinician-administered audiometry, self-administered automatic audiometry (AutoAud), clinician-administered Listening in Spatialised Noise - Sentences test and self-administered tablet-based hearing game Sound Scouts. Comparisons were made between tests to determine the agreement of the self-administered tests with clinician-administered tests in detecting hearing loss and speech-in-noise deficits.Study sample: Two hundred and ninety seven Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged 4-14 years from three schools.Results: Acceptable threshold differences of ≤5 dB between AutoAud and manual audiometry hearing thresholds were found for 88% of thresholds, with a greater agreement for older than for younger children. Consistent pass/fail results on the Sound Scouts speech-in-quiet measure and manual audiometry were found for 81% of children. Consistent pass/fail results on the Sound Scouts speech-in-noise measure and LiSN-S high-cue condition were found for 73% of children.Conclusions: This study shows good potential in using self-administered applications as initial tests for hearing problems in children. These tools may be especially valuable for children in remote locations and those from low socio-economic backgrounds who may not have easy access to healthcare.

The development of the listening in spatialised noise - universal test (LiSN-U) and preliminary evaluation in English-speaking listeners.

Objective: To create a language independent version of the Listening in Spatialised Noise - Sentences test (LiSN-S) and evaluate it in an English-speaking population.Design: Test development and normative data collection. LiSN-Universal (LiSN-U) targets consisted of CVCV pseudo-words (e.g. /mupa/). Two looped distracter tracks consisted of CVCVCVCV pseudo-words. The listener's task was to repeat back the target pseudo-words. Stimuli were presented over headphones using an iPad. Speech reception thresholds were measured adaptively. In the co-located condition all stimuli came from directly in front. In the spatially-separated condition the distracters emanated from +90° and -90° azimuth. Perceived location was manipulated using head-related transfer functions. Spatial advantage was calculated as the difference in dB between the co-located and spatially separated conditions.Study samples: Stimulus intelligibility data were collected from 20 adults. Normative data were collected from native English speakers (23 adults and 127 children).Results: Children's spatially separated, co-located, and spatial advantage results improved significantly with age. Spatial advantage was 4-6 dB larger in the LiSN-U than LiSN-S depending on age group.Conclusion: Whereas additional research in non-native English populations is required, the LiSN-U appears to be an effective tool for measuring spatial processing ability.