Slide1
Automated Audiometry
Scoping Review

Here you find an overview of all automated audiometry approaches included in the scoping review published in JMIR. When multiple reports described the same underlying approach, these reports were pooled in one approach-cluster.

Slide2
Living document

We would like to further expand this overview as a living document. If you find an approach not yet included please reach out to us.

Below you find an overview of all automated audiometry approaches included in the scoping review published in JMIR. When multiple reports described the same underlying approach, these reports were pooled in one approach-cluster. The name of the approach, citations to the initial report and/or common authorships were used to cluster the reports.

Inclusion criteria were:

  • Validated approaches of pure-tone threshold audiometry
  • published in the period from juli 2012 to juli 2021 in a peer-reviewed journal

We would like to further expand this overview as a living document. If you find an approach not yet included please fill out this form so that we can add it. Also if you find new report that could be added to an existing approach please let us know. You can send your suggestions to resources@computationalaudiology.com

Automated audiometry graded approaches

Click on an approach in the table to directly jump to that approach.

Graded Approaches

  1. OtoKiosk

Otokiosk is an iOS-based system developed for clinical hearing assessment

Selected reports:  

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequencies reduced 
Intensitiesnot reported
Maskingnot reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response method single response
Test paradigmself-test
Presentation of resultsconventional 
Test Equipment
Transducersair conduction, Peltor H7A earmuffs with RadioEar DD45 transducer
Calibration conventional 
Hardwaretablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB
Test-retestnot reported
Deals withnoise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard

26 subjects included, 47-76 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / adults
Efficiencynot reported

Back to top

  1. SHSA

smartphone-based hearing self-assessment system using hearing aids with fast audiometry method (SHSA)

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical
Intensitiesclinical
Maskingno
Seeking approachother
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodsingle response
Test paradigmself-test
Presentation of resultsconventional
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction

(hearing aids)

Calibration conventional
Hardwaresmartphone
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 6 dB 
Test-retestnot reported
Deals withnoise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard

20 subjects included, 34-73 years

Test Populationhearing lossadults
Efficiency

Testing time

mean testing time 0.7-1.3 minutes for automated unilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired

mean testing time 1.5-3 minutes for manual unilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired

Back to top

  1. Colsman et al

a calibrated app for pure-tone screening audiometry by self-assessment on a tablet

Selected reports:  

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(Sennheiser HDA 280)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/ tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

68 subjects included, age range 19-65 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

median testing time 12 minutes, range 10-20 minutes, for automated bilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing.

Back to top

  1. Corry et al

Introduction: app-based audiometer using commercial earphones

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(commercial earbuds)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

20 subjects included, 21-26 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

Mean testing time 4 minutes for bilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing (4.5 minutes manually).

Back to top

  1. Earbone

Introduction: an automated smartphone app that determines bone-conduction pure-tone thresholds

Selected reports: 

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(Radioear B71 bone oscillator)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

80 subjects included, 24-82 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
EfficiencyTesting time / number of stimuli / not reported

Back to top

  1. Eartrumpet

Eartrumpet is an iOS-based automated hearing testing application

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(Bose QuietComfort 15 Acoustic noise cancelling headphones and consumer earbuds)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

42 subjects included, 20-85 years(Foulad et al. 2013),

35 subjects included, 19-85 years(Kelly et al. 2018),

33 subjects included, 18-65 years(Saliba et al. 2017)

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

mean testing time 5 minutes for automated bilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired(Saliba et al. 2017).

Back to top

  1. Oto-ID

Introduction: A portable audiometer for ototoxicity monitoring

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(HDA200)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

9 subjects included, 8-24 years(Jacobs et al. 2012),

40 subjects included, 8-74 years(Dille et al. 2013)

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
EfficiencyTesting time / number of stimuli / not reported

Back to top

  1. Kids Hearing Game

Introduction Kids Hearing Game (KHG) determines an audiogram using a game format.

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(Ausdom F01 wired over-ear headphone)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

18 subjects included, 6-11 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing/ hearing loss/ children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
EfficiencyTesting time / number of stimuli / not reported

Back to top

  1. Liu et al

Introduction: software-based hearing self-testing system

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(ER-3A)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

50 subjects included, age range not reported

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
EfficiencyTesting time / number of stimuli / not reported

Back to top

  1. Agilis Health

Introduction: a tablet-based Agilis Health Mobile Audiogram as an effective and valid measure of hearing thresholds in an adult and paediatric population. http://www.agilishealth.com/

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(Etymotic HF5 earphones)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

27 subjects included, 12+ years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

mean testing time 10 minutes, range 8–14 minutes, for automated bilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired

Back to top

  1. AMTAS

AMTAS is commercialized by audiology incorporated and sold by Grason Stadlor (GSI). More info can be found on: http://audiologyincorporated.com/about

Selected reports:

Additional reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(Earphone TDH200 and Radioear B71)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard

30 subjects included, age range not reported(Margolis et al. 2010),

96 subjects, 4-8 years and adults(Margolis et al. 2011),

120 subjects included, 21-65 years(Margolis et al. 2007),

13 subjects included, 21-65 years(Margolis and Moore 2011)

reasonable standard / proof of concept

44 subjects included, 21-88 years(Eikelboom et al. 2013)

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss/ children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

mean testing time 7 minutes, range 6–8 minutes, for automated bilateral air and bone conduction audiogram in normal hearing(Margolis et al. 2010)

mean testing time 11 minutes, range 6–21 minutes, for automated bilateral air and bone conduction audiogram in hearing impaired(Margolis et al. 2010)

mean testing time 16 minutes, range 10–31 minutes, for automated bilateral air and bone conduction audiogram in hearing impaired(Eikelboom et al. 2013)

Back to top

  1. Home hearing test

Home hearing test is an AMTAS based test procedure that subjects can carry out at home. The home hearing test supports only air conduction. Distributed by Etymotic Research

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation /automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(Earphones modified Etymotic Research mc5)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard

126 subjects included, 44-88 years(Margolis et al. 2018),

112 subject included, 60+ years(Mosley et al. 2019)

reasonable standard / proof of concept

28 subjects included, 44-88 years(Margolis et al. 2016)

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss/ children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

mean testing time 10 minutes, for automated bilateral air conduction audiogram in hearing impaired(Mosley et al. 2019)

Back to top

  1. Masalski et al

A smartphone-based automated hearing test biologically calibrated. Calibration of mobile devices conducted by means of a biological method involves determining reference sound level in relation to the hearing threshold of normal-hearing persons

Selected reports:  

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(type not reported)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone / tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

51 subjects included, 11-60 years(Masalski and Kręcicki 2013),

70 subjects included, 18-71 years(Masalski et al. 2018),

number of subjects and age range not reported(Masalski et al. 2016)

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
EfficiencyTesting time / number of stimuli / not reported

Back to top

  1. WHATS

Whats (Wireless automated hearing test system) is a wireless audiometer developed by Creare LLC. 
Selected reports:  
Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(headphone)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

20 subjects included, 18+ years(Meinke et al. 2017);

101 subjects included, 6-9 years(Magro et al. 2020)

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

mean testing time 20 minutes, for subsequent automated and manual bilateral air audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired children(Magro et al. 2020)

Back to top

  1. HearTest application

The HearTest application runs on an iPhone (8/10/XR) combined with Sennheiser CX300 earphones

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(Sennheiser CX300 earphone)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

14 subjects included, 20-30 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss/ children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
EfficiencyTesting time / number of stimuli / not reported

Back to top

  1. Poling et al

a comparison of a clinical modified Hughson-Westlake (manual) method with an automated, modified (single frequency) Békésy tracking method

Selected reports:  

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction / bone conduction

(not reported)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

10 subjects included, 19- 47 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

mean testing time 17 minutes for automated unilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired (11-13 minutes manually)

Back to top

  1. Schlittenlacher et al

Two methods, a counting method and yes/no task, for estimating audiograms quickly and accurately using Bayesian active learning

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(HDA200)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

20 subjects included, 21-77 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss/ children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

Mean testing time 4 minutes for automated unilateral air audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired. RMSD fell below 5 dB after 18 trials for the Counting method and this criterion was after 28 trials for the Yes/No method.

Back to top

  1. Schmidt et al

a user-operated audiometry method based on the maximum likelihood principle

Selected reports:

Additional reports: Sidiras C, Sanchez-Lopez R, Pedersen ER, Sørensen CB, Nielsen J and Schmidt JH (2021) User-Operated Audiometry Project (UAud) – Introducing an Automated User-Operated System for Audiometric Testing Into Everyday Clinic Practice. Front. Digit. Health 3:724748. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2021.724748

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(HAD 200)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

41 subjects included, 11-69 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

Mean testing time 2 minutes per frequency for automated air conduction audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired. Participants needed

on average 36 trials to complete a frequency.

Back to top

  1. MLAG

Machine Learning audiometry (MLAG) is currently available as a research tool used on a small scale in clinics. MLAG is commercialized by Bonauria.

Selected reports:

Additional reports: none

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced /not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(HDA200, TDH-39)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard

21 subjects included, 18-90 years(Song et al. 2015),

21 subject included, 19-79 years(Barbour et al. 2019),

29 subjects included, 29-83 years(Heisey et al. 2020)

Reasonable standard /proof of concept

34 subjects included, age range not reported(Heisey et al. 2018)

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss/ children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

RMSD fell below 5 dB after a median of 67 trials using an automated Hughson-Westlake algorithm for unilateral air audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired. The MLAG algorithm 49 trials for the same accuracy(Barbour et al. 2019).

Mean testing time 2.1-4.8 minutes for bilateral air audiogram in normal hearing. RMSD fell below 5 dB after 19-44 trials.

Mean testing time 5-7 minutes, for bilateral air audiogram in hearing impaired. RMSD fell below 5 dB after 50-63 trials(Heisey et al. 2020).

Back to top

  1. Sun et al

Introduction An automated hearing test equipment based on active noise control technology

Selected reports:  

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced /not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(type not reported)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

95 subjects included, 20-68 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
EfficiencyTesting time / number of stimuli / not reported

Back to top

  1. KUDUwave

Kuduwave is commercialized by emoyo. For more info see https://emoyo.net/kuduwave/

Selected reports:

Additional reports: Swanepoel et al., 2010,

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced /not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(insert earphone, B-71 bone oscillator)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard

38 subjects included, 18-31 years(Swanepoel et al. 2010),

30 subjects included, 19-77 years(Swanepoel and Biagio 2011),

20 subjects included, 19-63 years(Visagie et al. 2015);

50 subjects included, 6-13 years(Govender and Mars 2018),

31 subjects included, 15-80 years(Storey et al. 2014)

reasonable standard / proof of concept

147 subjects included, 65-94 years(Maclennan-Smith et al. 2013),

23 subjects included, 20-75 years(Swanepoel de et al. 2015),

42 subjects included, 19-92 years(Brennan-Jones et al. 2016)

Test PopulationNormal hearing/ hearing loss/ children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

mean testing time 7-8 minutes, range 4-13 minutes, both for automated and manual bilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing(Swanepoel et al. 2010)

Back to top

  1. Heartest

Heartest has CE certification. Started as a hearing screening tool (validated hearScreen application), subsequently further developed for diagnostic purposes.

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation/ automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(circumaural headphones Sennheiser HD 202 II /300and insert earphones)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard

162 subjects included, 5-8 years(Swanepoel et al. 2014),

64 subjects included, 18-88 years(Sandström et al. 2016),

95 subjects included, 24-92 years(van Tonder et al. 2017),

61 subjects included, 16-64 years(Bornman et al. 2019),

340 subjects included, 5-92 years(Corona et al. 2020),

232 subjects included, age range not reported(Rodrigues et al. 2020);

reasonable standard / proof of concept

30 subjects included, 18-88 years (Sandström et al. 2016),

200 subjects included, 18-55 years(Brittz et al. 2019),

63 subjects included, 20-88 years(Sandström et al. 2020)

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment /ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

Mean testing time 7 minutes for automated and manual bilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired(van Tonder et al. 2017).

Mean testing time 4.5 minutes, range 2 – 14 minutes for automated bilateral partial (PTA) air conduction audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired(Brittz et al. 2019)

Mean testing time 5 minutes for automated bilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired in a sound booth, and 6 minutes outside a sound booth(Sandström et al. 2016)

Back to top

  1. Uhear

Introduction: Developed by Unitron (https://www.unitron.com/content/unitron/za/en/professional/practice-support/uhear.html)

Selected reports:  

Additional reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(Creative EP 630 earbuds)

Calibration conventional /unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

32 subjects included, 20-82 years(Handzel et al. 2013),

68 subjects included, 8-10 years(Khoza-Shangase and Kassner 2013),

100 subjects included, 18+ years(Szudek et al. 2012)

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss/ children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

mean testing time 5 minutes for bilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired(Szudek et al. 2012)

Back to top

  1. Van Tassel & Folkeard

Introduction: tablet-based self-measurement of auditory thresholds

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(ER-3A)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone / tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

55 subjects included, 22-86 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
EfficiencyTesting time / number of stimuli / not reported

Back to top

  1. NEWT

A new automated method termed as ‘New Early Warning Test (NEWT)’ has been designed to provide automatic auditory threshold monitoring in individuals exposed to high noise levels. The NEWT method is incorporated inside an active communication earplug called Quietpro®, which has high attenuation characteristics for background noise.

Selected reports:  (Vinay et al. 2014, 2015)

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(Quietpro HDP unit)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

22 subjects included, 25-37 years(Vinay et al. 2015),

16 subjects included, 24-62 years(Vinay et al. 2014)

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

Mean testing time 1.5 minutes, for automated unilateral partial audiogram (1, 3, 4 and 6 kHz) air conduction audiogram in normal hearing (3 minutes manually)(Vinay et al. 2014).

Back to top

  1. Whitton et al

a self-administered audiometric software application that can be used at home

Selected reports:

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(Bose AE2i consumer-grade circumaural)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/ tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard / reasonable standard / proof of concept

19 subjects included, 25-82 years

Test PopulationNormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
EfficiencyTesting time / number of stimuli / not reported

Back to top

  1. Shoebox

Introduction: SHOEBOX developed an iPad audiometer. For more information: https://www.shoebox.md/

Selected reports: Yeung et al., 2013(Bastianelli et al. 2019; Saliba et al. 2017; Thompson et al. 2015; Vijayasingam et al. 2020; Yalamanchali et al. 2020; Yeung et al. 2013, 2015)

Threshold Seeking Method and Range
Frequenciesclinical / high-resolution /reduced / extended range /not reported
Intensitiesclinical / extended / reduced / not reported
Maskingautomated /manual / other / no / not reported
Seeking approach(modified) Hughson-Westlake / MLAG / Bekesy tracking / other
Response Method and Presentation of Results
Response methodforced choice / single response / not reported
Test paradigmself-test / facilitated by operator
Presentation of resultsconventional / high-resolution representation / automated classification / not reported
Test Equipment
Transducers

air conduction/ bone conduction

(TDH-50, ER-3A inserts and speakers)

Calibration conventional / unconventional / no / not reported
Hardwareportable audiometer / computer-based / web-based / smartphone/ tablet
Test Quality Control
Comparison automated versus manualRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Test-retestRMSD < 10 dB / < 6 dB / statistical equivalence / statistically not equivalent / not reported
Deals withfalse-responses / noise control
Validation Approach, Test Population, and Context
Validation

gold standard

70 subjects included, 3-13 years(Yeung et al. 2013),

33 subjects included, 18-65 years(Saliba et al. 2017),

40 subjects included, 19-87 years(Bastianelli et al. 2019),

49 subjects included, 4-88 years(Thompson et al. 2015),

70 subjects included, 5-52 years(Yalamanchali et al. 2020);

126 subjects included, 24-42 years(Vijayasingam et al. 2020)

reasonable standard / proof of concept

79 subjects included, 5-17 years(Yeung et al. 2015)

Test Populationnormal hearing / hearing loss / children / adults / elderly / veterans / low-resource environment / ototoxic- / self- / noise- monitoring / infectious disease
Efficiency

Testing time / number of stimuli / not reported

Mean testing time 2 minutes for automated bilateral air conduction audiogram in normal hearing children. Mean testing time 5 minutes for automated bilateral air conduction audiogram in hearing impaired children(Yeung et al. 2013)

mean testing time 10-15 minutes for automated bilateral air conduction (including extended frequencies) audiogram in normal hearing and hearing impaired adults(Vijayasingam et al. 2020).

Back to top

References

Version 23 januari 2022

References missing from Swanepoel, Vinay and Shoebox