We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Repeatability, agreement, and feasibility of using the threshold equalizing noise test and fast psychophysical tuning curves in a clinical setting.
International Journal of Audiology 2014 October
OBJECTIVE: To investigate repeatability, agreement, and clinical feasibility of the threshold equalizing noise (TEN) test and fast psychophysical tuning curve (PTC) measurements to detect off-frequency listening, an indicator of cochlear dead regions (DRs).
DESIGN: The TEN-test was carried out from 0.5 to 4 kHz and fast PTCs were carried out at ≥ 2 frequencies.
STUDY SAMPLE: The TEN-test was completed on 70 ears; fast PTCs were measured on 20 ears.
RESULTS: TEN-test findings were repeatable in terms of meeting the criteria for a DR (97%) and identifying the same edge frequency (fe) (87%). In all cases, fast PTCs were repeatable in terms of meeting the criteria for DRs. There was 87% agreement between the two procedures in terms of the presence of off-frequency listening, and there was 73% agreement in terms of fe. Fast PTCs had a 10% lower 'conclusive finding' rate than the TEN-test and the test duration was typically 40 minutes longer.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the TEN-test and fast PTCs have high test-retest repeatability. The TEN-test is more clinically feasible due to its shorter test duration and higher interpretation rate, but it may underestimate the extent of a DR because of its inability to precisely identify fe.
DESIGN: The TEN-test was carried out from 0.5 to 4 kHz and fast PTCs were carried out at ≥ 2 frequencies.
STUDY SAMPLE: The TEN-test was completed on 70 ears; fast PTCs were measured on 20 ears.
RESULTS: TEN-test findings were repeatable in terms of meeting the criteria for a DR (97%) and identifying the same edge frequency (fe) (87%). In all cases, fast PTCs were repeatable in terms of meeting the criteria for DRs. There was 87% agreement between the two procedures in terms of the presence of off-frequency listening, and there was 73% agreement in terms of fe. Fast PTCs had a 10% lower 'conclusive finding' rate than the TEN-test and the test duration was typically 40 minutes longer.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the TEN-test and fast PTCs have high test-retest repeatability. The TEN-test is more clinically feasible due to its shorter test duration and higher interpretation rate, but it may underestimate the extent of a DR because of its inability to precisely identify fe.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app