A user-operated audiometry method based on the maximum likelihood principle and the two-alternative forced-choice paradigm

References

• Atherley G.R. & Dingwall-Fordyce I. 1963. The reliability of repeated auditory threshold determination. Br J Ind Med, 20, 231–235.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Békésy V.G. 1947. A new audiometer. Acta Otolaryngol, 35, 411–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland J.M. & Altman D.G. 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1, 307–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brand T. & Kollmeier B. 2002. Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 2801–2810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burk M.H. & Wiley T.L. 2004. Continuous versus pulsed tones in audiometry. Am J Audiol, 13, 54–61.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burns W. & Hinchcliffe R. 1957. Comparison of the auditory threshold as measured by individual pure tone and by Bekesy audiometry. J Acoust Soc Am, 29, 1274–1277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobie R.A. 1983. Reliability and validity of industrial audiometry: Implications for hearing conservation program design. Laryngoscope, 93, 906–927.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eikelboom R.H., Swanepoel de W., Motakef S. & Upson G.S. 2013. Clinical validation of the AMTAS automated audiometer. Int J Audiol, 52, 342–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson B., Hakanson H., Ivarsson A. & Nilsson P. 1979. Comparison of the hearing threshold measured by manual pure-tone and by self-recording (Békésy) audiometry. Audiology, 18, 414–429.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flottorp G. 1995. Improving audiometric thresholds by changing the headphone position at the ear. Audiology, 34, 221–231.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Formby C., Sherlock L.P. & Green D.M. 1996. Evaluation of a maximum likelihood procedure for measuring pure-tone thresholds under computer control. J Am Acad Audiol, 7, 125–129.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Green D.M. 1993. A maximum-likelihood method for estimating thresholds in a yes-no task. J Acoust Soc Am, 93, 2096–2105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green D.M. 1995. Maximum-likelihood procedures and the inattentive observer. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 3749–3760.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gu X. & Green D.M. 1994. Further studies of a maximum-likelihood yes-no procedure. J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 93–101.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hall J.L. 1983. A procedure for detecting variability of psychophysical thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am, 73, 663–667.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harris D.A. 1979. Microprocessor, self-recording, and manual audiometry. J Aud Res, 19, 159–166.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ho A.T., Hildreth A.J. & Lindsey L. 2009. Computer-assisted audiometry versus manual audiometry. Otol Neurotol, 30, 876–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IEC 60318-1 1998.. Electroacoustics - Simulators of human head and ear - Part 1: Ear simulator for the calibration of supra-aural earphones. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.
   Google Scholar
• IEC 60645-1 2012.. Electroacoustics - Audiometric equipment - Part 1:Equipment for pure-tone audiometry. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 389-8 2004. Acoustics - Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment - Part 8: Reference equivalent threshold sound pressure levels for pure tones and circumaural earphones. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 8253-1 2010.. Acoustics - Audiometric test methods - Part 1: Basic pure-tone air and bone conduction threshold audiometry. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
   Google Scholar
• Kollmeier B., Gilkey R.H. & Sieben U.K. 1988. Adaptive staircase techniques in psychoacoustics: A comparison of human data and a mathematical model. J Acoust Soc Am, 83, 1852–1862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leek M.R., Dubno J.R., He N. & Ahlstrom J.B. 2000. Experience with a yes-no single-interval maximum-likelihood procedure. J Acoust Soc Am, 107, 2674–2684.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leek M.R., Hanna T.E. & Marshall L. 1991. An interleaved tracking procedure to monitor unstable psychometric functions. J Acoust Soc Am, 90, 1385–1397.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levitt H. 1971. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am, 49, 467–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutman M.E., Cane M.A. & Smith P.A. 1989. Comparison of manual and computer-controlled self-recorded audiometric methods for serial monitoring of hearing. Br J Audiol, 23, 305–315.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mahomed F., Swanepoel de W., Eikelboom R.H. & Soer M. 2013. Validity of automated threshold audiometry: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ear Hear, 34, 745–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margolis R.H., Glasberg B.R., Creeke S. & Moore B.C. 2010. AMTAS: Automated method for testing auditory sensitivity: Validation studies. Int J Audiol, 49, 185–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall L. 1991. Decision criteria for pure-tone detection used by two age groups of normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Gerontol, 46, 67–70.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall L. & Jesteadt W. 1986. Comparison of pure-tone audibility thresholds obtained with audiological and two-interval forced-choice procedures. J Speech Hear Res, 29, 82–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marvit P., Florentine M. & Buus S. 2003. A comparison of psychophysical procedures for level-discrimination thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 3348–3361.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O’Regan J.K. & Humbert R. 1989. Estimating psychometric functions in forced-choice situations: Significant biases found in threshold and slope estimations when small samples are used. Percept Psychophys, 46, 434–442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulsen T. 1981. Loudness of tone pulses in a free field. J Acoust Soc Am, 69, 1786–1790.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson D.W. 1991. Long-term repeatability of the pure-tone hearing threshold and its relation to noise exposure. Br J Audiol, 25, 219–235.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robinson D.W. & Whittle L.S. 1973. A comparison of self-recording and manual audiometry: Some systematic effects shown by unpractised subjects. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 26, 41–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saberi K. & Green D.M. 1996. Adaptive psychophysical procedures and imbalance in the psychometric function. J Acoust Soc Am, 100, 528–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlauch R.S. & Rose R.M. 1990. Two-, three-, and four-interval forced-choice staircase procedures: Estimator bias and efficiency. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 732–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelton B.R. & Scarrow I. 1984. Two-alternative versus three-alternative procedures for threshold estimation. Percept Psychophys, 35, 385–392.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swanepoel de W., Mngemane S., Molemong S., Mkwanazi H. & Tutshini S. 2010. Hearing assessment-reliability, accuracy, and efficiency of automated audiometry. Telemed J E Health, 16, 557–563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Tasell D.J. & Folkeard P. 2013. Reliability and accuracy of a method of adjustment for self-measurement of auditory thresholds. Otol Neurotol, 34, 9–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar