![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Objectives: Extended high-frequency (EHF) audiometry is useful for evaluating ototoxic exposures and may relate to speech recognition, localisation and hearing aid benefit. There is a need to determine whether common clinical practice for EHF audiometry using tone and noise stimuli is reliable. We evaluated equivalence and compared test-retest (TRT) reproducibility for audiometric thresholds obtained using pure tones and narrowband noise (NBN) from 0.25 to 16 kHz. Design: Thresholds and test-retest reproducibility for stimuli in the conventional (0.25–6 kHz) and EHF (8–16 kHz) frequency ranges were compared in a repeated-measures design. Study sample: A total of 70 ears of adults with normal hearing. Results: Thresholds obtained using NBN were significantly lower than thresholds obtained using pure tones from 0.5 to 16 kHz, but not 0.25 kHz. Good TRT reproducibility (within 2 dB) was observed for both stimuli at all frequencies. Responses at the lower limit of the presentation range for NBN centred at 14 and 16 kHz suggest unreliability for NBN as a threshold stimulus at these frequencies. Conclusion: Thresholds in the conventional and EHF ranges showed good test-retest reproducibility, but differed between stimulus types. Care should be taken when comparing pure-tone thresholds with NBN thresholds especially at these frequencies.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Michelle Walbom and Courtney Post for their assistance in data collection.
Declaration of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.