Validation of a tablet-based application for hearing self-screening in an adult population

This study evaluated the diagnostic performances of a tablet-based hearing screening test by assisted-test and self-test modes. Measurements were performed with the SoTone tests in normal hearing and hearing-impaired adult participants using an Android tablet and calibrated Bluetooth headphones. The duration of assisted- and self-test modes were compared. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted after calculations of sensitivity and specificity at 20, 30, and 35 dB HL cut-off values. 217 participants performed the tests. The effect of test mode (assisted versus self) was compared in a sample of 103 participants. Self-test duration (89 s) was significantly longer than the assisted-test duration (75 s) (p = 0.003, Wilcoxon test). For the 20, 30, and 35 dB HL cut-off values, sensitivity was between 92% and 96%, and specificity was between 79 and 90%. Concordance of results between assisted-test and self-test modes was excellent (Cohen’s kappa = 0.81, p  The SoTone hearing screening test is accurate for identifying the presence of a suspected hearing loss at 20 dB HL or more in adults. It can be used either in assisted-test or self-test modes.</p

Absolute numbers of the various etiologies defined in the dataset.

<p>These etiologies are classified by poorest to best speech outcome in quiet with a CI. ANSD: Auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. “Miscellaneous” included non-genetic congenital etiologies, cerebral ischemia, drepanocytosis, cephalic trauma without temporal bone fracture, etc. CI recipients presenting with the etiologies encompassed between the two vertical dotted lines showed performances around average, i.e. 50% of speech recognition (not statistically different from average). CI recipients presenting with etiologies on the left part of the dotted lines performed significantly below average. CI recipients presenting with etiologies on the right part of the dotted lines performed significantly better than average. Adapted from Blamey et al (in press).</p

Results of the new GLM analysis using ranked speech scores in noise with a CI as the dependent variable.

<p>Results of the new GLM analysis using ranked speech scores in noise with a CI as the dependent variable.</p

Significant effect of Pure Tone Average thresholds of the better ear on the residual percentile rank.

<p>Error bars indicate +/− two standard errors of the mean for each pure tone average range (approximately equivalent to the 95% confidence interval for each mean value shown on the graph; if two mean values fall within one error bar, then the means are not significantly different (p>0.05)). The numbers next to each symbol indicate the number of data points in that range.</p

Significant effect of percentage of active electrodes on the residual percentile rank.

<p>Error bars indicate +/− two standard errors of the mean for each range (approximately equivalent to the 95% confidence interval for each mean value shown on the graph; if two mean values fall within one error bar, then the means are not significantly different (p>0.05)). The numbers next to each symbol indicate the number of data points in that range.</p

Significant effect of brands of CI on the residual percentile rank.

<p>Error bars indicate +/− two standard errors of the mean for each CI brand (approximately equivalent to the 95% confidence interval for each mean value shown on the graph; if two mean values fall within one error bar, then the means are not significantly different (p>0.05)). The numbers of data points for each brand were not indicated to avoid potential identification of the individual brands.</p

Three-stage model of mean expected auditory performance ranking over time for a hypothetical “average CI recipient”.

<p>The detailed description of the Figure is in the <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048739#s3" target="_blank">Results</a> section. mHL: moderate hearing loss; s/p HL: severe to profound hearing loss, HA: hearind aid.</p

Results from the 15 five-factor GLM analyses.

<p>Results from the 15 five-factor GLM analyses.</p