Measuring Audiometric Outcomes

  • Christopher F. Halpin


Audiometry provides evidence to 19 of the topic areas in this book and to much of the otolaryngologic literature. Audiometric evaluations, consisting of pure tone thresholds and word recognition scores are not data points; they are very general evaluations designed to cover all reasonable questions about the peripheral auditory system of the patient. It is clear that audiometric evaluations contain a great deal of useful data, and equally clear that large amounts of the information should be reduced and refocused in order to serve as useful study evidence. This chapter will explore some fine points regarding audiometric data, and attempt to provide support for the process of data reduction and focus. Issues related to pure tones will be addressed first, followed by a discussion of standard word recognition.


Hearing Loss Hair Cell Word Recognition Pure Tone Tuning Curve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kiang N, Moxon E. Tails of the tuning curves of auditory nerve fibers, J Acous Soc Am 1974;55:620–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Halpin C. The tuning curve in clinical audiology. Am J Audiol 2002;11:56–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schuknecht H. Pathology of the Ear. 2nd ed. Malvern, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liberman M, Dodds L. Single neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathologies. III. Stereocilia damage and alteration of threshold tuning curves. Hear Res 1983;16:55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halpin C, Thornton A, Hou Z. The articulation index in clinical diagnosis and hearing aid fitting. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;4:325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 7.
    Carhart R, Jerger J. Preferred method for determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Dis 1959;24:330.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Boothroyd A, Calkwell S. Vibrotactile thresholds in puretone audiometry. In: Chaiklin J, Ventry I, Dixon R, eds. Hearing Measurement: A Book of Readings (2nd ed. 1981). New York: Addison-Wesley; 1970:134–139.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Rosowski J, Songer J, Nakajima H, Brinsko K, Merchant S. Clinical, experimental, and theoretical investigations of the effect of superior semicircular canal dehiscence on hearing mechanisms. Otol Neurotol 2004;25(3):323–332.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    Ravicz M, Rosowski J, Merchant S. Mechanisms of hearing loss resulting from middle ear fluid. Hear Res 2004;195:103–130.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 11.
    Tonndorf J. Sensorineural and pseudosensorineural hearing losses. ORL J Ortorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1988; 50(2):79–83.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Ahmad I, Pahor A. Carhart’s notch: a finding in otitis media with effusion. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2002; 64(2):165–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 13.
    Monsell E. New and revised reporting guidelines from the Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113:176–178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 14.
    French N, Steinberg J. Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acous Soc Am 1947;19:90–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 15.
    Allen J. Harvey Fletcher’s role in the creation of communication acoustics. J Acous Soc Am 1996;99: 1825–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 16.
    Fletcher H. A method for calculating the hearing loss for speech from an audiogram. J Acous Soc Am 1950;22:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 18.
    Halpin C, Khetarpal U, McKenna M. Autosomal-dominant sensorineural hearing loss in a large North American family. Am J Audiol 1996;5(1):105–111.Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Young E, Sachs M. Representation of steady-state vowels in the temporal aspects of the discharge patterns of populations of auditory nerve fibers. J Acous Soc Am 1979;66: 1381–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 20.
    Carhart R. Individual differences in hearing for speech. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryng 1946;55:233–266.Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    Thornton A, Halpin C, Han Y, Hou Z. The Harvard Audiometer Operating System [software]. Palo Alto, CA: Applitech; 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 22.
    Halpin C, Thorton A, Hasso M. Low frequency sensorineural hearing loss: clinical evaluation and implications for hearing aid fitting. Ear Hear 1994;15:71–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 23.
    Hirsh I, Davis H, Silverman E, Reynolds E, Eldert E, Benson R. Development of materials for speech audiometry. In: Chaiklin J, Ventry I, Dixon R, eds. Hearing Measurement: A Book of Readings (2nd ed. 1981) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1952:183–196.Google Scholar
  22. 24.
    Roth A, Lankford J, Meinke D, Long G. Using the AI to manage patient decisions. Adv Audiol 2001;Nov–Dec: 22–23.Google Scholar
  23. 25.
    Thornton A, Raffin M. Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 1978;21: 507–518.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 26.
    Halpin C, Rauch S. Using audiometric thresholds and word recognition in a treatment study. Otol Neurotol 2006;27(1):110–116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher F. Halpin
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of AudiologyMassachusetts Eye and Ear InfirmaryBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations