Download PDF
Semin Hear 2017; 38(01): 003-025
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1598063
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Intra- and Intersubject Variability in Audiometric Measures and Loudness Judgments in Older Listeners with Normal Hearing

Monica L. Hawley
1   Department of Otolaryngology, HNS, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
LaGuinn P. Sherlock
2   Army Hearing Division, United States Army Public Health Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland
3   National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Craig Formby
4   Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
09 March 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This research was to document intra- and intersubject variability in measures of pure tone thresholds, loudness discomfort levels, and the Contour test of loudness for tonal and speech stimuli across 8 to 10 repeated test sessions over a period of almost 1 year in a group of 11 normal-hearing, older middle-aged adults (39 to 73 years, mean of 56 years). The measured pure tone thresholds and loudness discomfort levels were determined to be stable across sessions, with variability on the order of 5 dB. The categorical judgments for the Contour test for both warbled tones and spondaic speech stimuli decreased over time in level required for categories greater than comfortable. This result contrasts with reports of a slight increase over time when young, normal-hearing adults were tested in comparable measures. The intrasubject variability in the Contour test results was greatest for the 4,000-Hz tonal stimulus for which the largest time effects were observed. The intersubject variability was typically greater than the intrasubject variability and typically increased as the loudness category increased, with some exceptions. The results from this study can be used to aid in power and sample size analyses using these measures in future studies designed to compare effects of treatments based on changes in loudness judgments over time.

Keywords

Sound tolerance - loudness discomfort level - pure tone threshold - categorical loudness judgments
 

  • References

  • 1 Brown RE. Experimental studies on the reliability of audiometry. J Laryngol Otol 1948; 62 (8) 487-524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Corso JF, Cohen A. Methodological aspects of auditory threshold measurements. J Exp Psychol 1958; 55 (1) 8-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hickling S. Studies on the reliability of auditory threshold values. J Aud Res 1966; 6: 39-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wertheimer M. The variability of auditory and visual absolute thresholds in time. J Gen Psychol 1955; 52: 111-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Nixon JC, Glorig A, High WS. Changes in air and bone conduction thresholds as a function of age. J Laryngol Otol 1962; 76: 288-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hughson W, Westlake HD. Manual for program outline for rehabilitation of aural casualties both military and civilan. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1944; ;(Suppl): 3-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Carhart R, Jerger JF. Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord 1959; 24: 330-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. ASHA 1978; 20 (4) 297-301
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Schmuziger N, Probst R, Smurzynski J. Test-retest reliability of pure-tone thresholds from 0.5 to 16 kHz using Sennheiser HDA 200 and Etymotic Research ER-2 earphones. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (2) 127-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Divenyi PL, Stark PB, Haupt KM. Decline of speech understanding and auditory thresholds in the elderly. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 118 (2) 1089-1100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lee FS, Matthews LJ, Dubno JR, Mills JH. Longitudinal study of pure-tone thresholds in older persons. Ear Hear 2005; 26 (1) 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sherlock LP, Formby C. Estimates of loudness, loudness discomfort, and the auditory dynamic range: normative estimates, comparison of procedures, and test-retest reliability. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (2) 85-100
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Skinner MW. Hearing Aid Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Keller JN. Loudness discomfort levels: a retrospective study comparing data from Pascoe (1988) and Washington University School of Medicine, Program in Audiology and Communication Sciences. St. Louis, MO: Washington University School of Medicine; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Mueller HG, Bentler RA. Fitting hearing aids using clinical measures of loudness discomfort levels: an evidence-based review of effectiveness. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (7) 461-472
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Silverman SR. Tolerance for pure tones and speech in normal and defective hearing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1947; 56 (3) 658-677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Morgan DE, Wilson RH, Dirks DD. Loudness discomfort level: selected methods and stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 1974; 56 (2) 577-581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kamm C, Dirks DD, Mickey MR. Effect of sensorineural hearing loss on loudness discomfort level and most comfortable loudness judgments. J Speech Hear Res 1978; 21 (4) 668-681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Goldstein B, Shulman A. Tinnitus—hyperacusis and the loudness discomfort level test—a preliminary report. Int Tinnitus J 1996; 2: 83-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kiessling J, Schubert M, Archut A. Adaptive fitting of hearing instruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt). Scand Audiol 1996; 25 (3) 153-160
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Moore BC, Lynch C, Stone MA. Effects of the fitting parameters of a two-channel compression system on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in noise. Br J Audiol 1992; 26 (6) 369-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Allen JB, Hall JL, Jeng PS. Loudness growth in 1/2-octave bands (LGOB)—a procedure for the assessment of loudness. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88 (2) 745-753
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Robinson K, Gatehouse S. Test-retest reliability of loudness scaling. Ear Hear 1996; 17 (2) 120-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Taylor IM, Gray GA. The contour test of loudness perception. Ear Hear 1997; 18 (5) 388-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Beattie RC, Huynh RC, Ngo VN, Jones RL. IHAFF loudness contour test: reliability and effects of approach mode in normal-hearing subjects. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8 (4) 243-256
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rasmussen AN, Olsen SO, Borgkvist BV, Nielsen LH. Long-term test-retest reliability of category loudness scaling in normal-hearing subjects using pure-tone stimuli. Scand Audiol 1998; 27 (3) 161-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Formby C, Hawley ML, Sherlock LP , et al. A sound therapy-based intervention to expand the auditory dynamic range for loudness among persons with sensorineural hearing losses: a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Semin Hear 2015; 36 (2) 77-110
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Formby C, Payne J, Yang X, Wu D, Parton JM. Repeated measurement of absolute and relative judgments of loudness: clinical relevance for prescriptive fitting of aided target gains for “soft”, “comfortable”, and “loud, but OK” sound levels. Semin Hear 2017; 38 (1) 27-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Humes LE, Wilson DL. An examination of changes in hearing-aid performance and benefit in the elderly over a 3-year period of hearing-aid use. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2003; 46 (1) 137-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Humes LE, Wilson DL, Barlow NN, Garner C. Changes in hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2002; 45 (4) 772-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar