Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33136643›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Dynamically Masked Audiograms With Machine Learning Audiometry.

Katherine L Heisey, Alexandra M Walker, Kevin Xie, Jenna M Abrams, Dennis L Barbour

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Katherine L HeiseyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Laboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Alexandra M WalkerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Laboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Kevin XieDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Laboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jenna M AbramsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Laboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Dennis L BarbourDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Laboratory of Sensory Neuroscience and Neuroengineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWhen one ear of an individual can hear significantly better than the other ear, evaluating the worse ear with loud probe tones may require delivering masking noise to the better ear to prevent the probe tones from inadvertently being heard by the better ear. Current masking protocols are confusing, laborious, and time consuming. Adding a standardized masking protocol to an active machine learning audiogram procedure could potentially alleviate all of these drawbacks by dynamically adapting the masking as needed for each individual. The goal of this study is to determine the accuracy and efficiency of automated machine learning masking for obtaining true hearing thresholds.

designDynamically masked automated audiograms were collected for 29 participants between the ages of 21 and 83 (mean 43, SD 20) with a wide range of hearing abilities. Normal-hearing listeners were given unmasked and masked machine learning audiogram tests. Listeners with hearing loss were given a standard audiogram test by an audiologist, with masking stimuli added as clinically determined, followed by a masked machine learning audiogram test. The hearing thresholds estimated for each pair of techniques were compared at standard audiogram frequencies (i.e., 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 kHz).

resultsMasked and unmasked machine learning audiogram threshold estimates matched each other well in normal-hearing listeners, with a mean absolute difference between threshold estimates of 3.4 dB. Masked machine learning audiogram thresholds also matched well the thresholds determined by a conventional masking procedure, with a mean absolute difference between threshold estimates for listeners with low asymmetry and high asymmetry between the ears, respectively, of 4.9 and 2.6 dB. Notably, out of 6200 masked machine learning audiogram tone deliveries for this study, no instances of tones detected by the nontest ear were documented. The machine learning methods were also generally faster than the manual methods, and for some listeners, substantially so.

conclusionsDynamically masked audiograms achieve accurate true threshold estimates and reduce test time compared with current clinical masking procedures. Dynamic masking is a compelling alternative to the methods currently used to evaluate individuals with highly asymmetric hearing, yet can also be used effectively and efficiently for anyone.

Indexed as

AudiometryHearing LossAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometry, Pure-ToneAuditory ThresholdHearingHumansMachine LearningMiddle AgedPerceptual MaskingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33136643
PMCPMC7725866
OpenAlexW3033892043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.