Digital Speech Hearing Screening Using A Quick Novel Mobile Hearing Impairment Assessment

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4165261/v1

Download PDF

Article

Digital Speech Hearing Screening Using A Quick Novel Mobile Hearing Impairment Assessment

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4165261/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 10 Sep, 2024

Read the published version in Scientific Reports →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

By 2050, 1 in 4 people worldwide will be living with hearing impairment by 2050. We propose a digital Speech Hearing Screener (dSHS) using short nonsense word recognition to measure speech-hearing ability. We compare dSHS outcomes with standardized pure-tone averages (PTA) and speech-recognition thresholds (SRT). 50 participants (aged 55 or older underwent pure-tone and speech-recognition thresholding.

Methods

One-way ANOVA was used to compare differences between hearing impaired and hearing not-impaired groups, by the dSHS, with a clinical threshold of moderately impaired hearing at 35dB and severe hearing impairment at 50dB.

Results

dSHS results significantly correlated with PTAs/SRTs. ANOVA results revealed the dSHS was significantly different (F(1,47) = 38.1, p < 0.001) between hearing impaired and unimpaired groups. Classification analysis using a 35dB threshold, yielded accuracy of 85.7% forPTA-based impairment and 81.6% forSRT-based impairment. At a 50dB threshold, dSHS classification accuracy was 79.6% for PTA-based impairment (NPV-93%) and 83.7% (NPV-100%) for SRT-based impairment.

Conclusions

The dSHS successfully differentiates between hearing impaired and unimpaired individuals in under 3 minutes. This hearing screener offers a time saving, in clinic hearing screening to streamline the triage of those with likely hearing impairment to the appropriate follow up assessment, thereby improving the quality of services. Additionally, this tool can help to rule out hearing impairment as a cause or confounder of cognitive impairment.

Health sciences/Medical research/Biomarkers

Health sciences/Medical research/Outcomes research

Biological sciences/Neuroscience

Health sciences/Health occupations

Health sciences/Neurology/Neurological disorders/Dementia

Digital Hearing Screening

speech recognition

pure tone audiometry

cognition

The World Health Organization anticipates that 1 in 4 people worldwide will be living with hearing impairment by the year 2050 ¹. Recent research by the Lancet Commission showed a direct association between untreated hearing impairment and cognitive impairment, aging-related neurodegeneration, and risk of developing dementia ^2–6. Hearing impairment in older adults leads to a reduction in social activity and engagement, making it more difficult in some cases to diagnose both hearing loss and cognitive impairment ^7–9. An estimated 8% of dementia cases can be avoided by addressing hearing impairment ³. Additional research suggests that a decrease in objective speech-hearing ability is likely to negatively impact a person's cognitive ability as they age ¹¹. Unfortunately, only 14–16% of older adults are regularly screened for hearing impairment ^7,10, and thus hearing loss is often underdiagnosed.

On average, it takes adults 7–10 years after the onset of their hearing impairment symptoms before seeking a hearing screening and still several more years of delay after the initial screening to receive an intervention to address their hearing issues ^12,13. This delay in screening is compounded by the low sensitivity of common hearing screening methods. For example, the self-reported Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) and the Whisper Tests have a sensitivity of 62% and 73%, respectively, and are highly variable as they depend on the test administrator and the listening environment ¹². Thus, even when an individual is screened, hearing impairment may be missed in a substantial number of cases, further delaying hearing loss intervention. As such, the clinical utility of these screening methods is limited. Anticipating an increase in the global prevalence of hearing impairment, a fast, reliable, repeatable, sensitive, and automated method for screening hearing in older adults is clearly needed ^7,10.

Digital solutions may be a more viable solution for addressing hearing screening problems by providing a ubiquitous and scalable option, which can be readily integrated into various clinical and research workflows. Such solutions, however, also have limitations that hinder their wide adoption. Many digital hearing screening methods mimic standard audiometric determination of pure tone threshold averages (PTAs) by presenting a steady tone ^13,14. These PTAs are often used to infer speech-hearing ability, a practice that is not reliable given that they often fall between 8-16dB quieter than standardized audiometric speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) ^13–17. Current methods that implement speech hearing evaluate an individual's hearing of numbers or words ^13,18. This presents a challenge in the context of cognitive screening where numbers are often parts of neuropsychological evaluations, and this practice introduces potential intrusion errors on subsequent testing ¹³. Adult hearing screening is in need of a solution that can be quickly administered and interpreted, objectively evaluates the individual’s speech-hearing ability, and can be used without impacting cognitive screening.

To address these gaps, a digital speech hearing screener (dSHS) was developed as an accompaniment to the Digital Clock and Recall (DCR), a brief digital cognitive assessment. The DCR consists of an immediate recall of three words, followed by the DCTclock™ drawing command and copy clock conditions, and finally the delayed recall of the same three words ^19–21. The patient’s or participant’s ability to perform the DCR critically depends upon the patient’s or participant’s accurate perception of the target words, thus an assessment of the person’s ability to hear the instructions and three word recall is critical. We propose a dSHS that does not rely on pure tones but instead requires the recognition of short nonsense words, to better understand an individual's speech-hearing ability. The main objectives of this cross-sectional observational study were to compare the hearing thresholds automatically calculated by the dSHS to the results of a clinical audiogram (pure tones and speech recognition) and examine the relationship between these thresholds. Furthermore, we report classification analysis of the mild impairment clinical standard threshold of 35dB and the moderate impairment threshold of 50dB.

Study Sample − 50 participants were enrolled as part of clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05848804) at a single site (Crossover Management, Wake Forest, NC) over 11 months. All Participants were 55 years of age or older, and fluent in English. Participants were excluded if they were unable to understand or unwilling to comply with testing instructions, reported a major psychiatric disorder such as bipolar disorder or if they had major medical problems such as cancer or epilepsy. Hearing tests were administered by a trained hearing instrumentation specialist after obtaining informed consent from each subject. Study procedures were approved by an independent Institutional Review Board (Advarra IRB Inc., Columbia, MD; www.advarra.com/) and was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines/regulations. Each participant was assigned (using the 4-block randomization method shown in Fig. 1) to one of two groups: the first group completed the audiogram first and then the dSHS, whereas the second group completed the dSHS first and then the audiogram. Equal numbers of participants were enrolled in each study arm.

Mobile Device Sound Output Calibration - The dSHS and cognitive assessment battery were conducted using an iPad Pro (11", 4th Generation, Wi-Fi, Apple, Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA). Sound levels produced by the iPad Pro were measured using a Type 2 calibrated SPL meter set to the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for electroacoustic devices (IEC 61672-1 class2, IEC651 Type2, ANSI14 Type2) placed 1 foot from the mobile device. Study participants were tested in a quiet environment testing center. Calibration is vital for comparison between the sound output levels of devices and for the threshold comparisons (PTA, SRT, and dSHS) made in this study to those of similarly calibrated devices used for audiometric assessment in the clinic.

Study Protocol - Pure tone average (PTA) thresholds were established at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz tones. Speech recognition thresholds (SRT) were established during audiometric testing as the lowest levels at which pre-recorded speech presented at a consistent intensity could be recognized with at least 50% accuracy ^15,16,22,23. The dSHS used nonsense words to avoid potential intrusion effects on subsequent cognitive testing. In the dSHS, a short, nonsense vowel-consonant-vowel (VCV) word was presented by the mobile device's external speakers (Fig. 2). Participants were asked to select from a list of 6 nonsense VCV words randomly selected from a constrained list, the one that best matched what they heard. If they did not hear or understand the word, participants were instructed to select “Didn’t Hear,” which was considered an incorrect response. The volume was increased incrementally by steps of 6.25% on the tablet following every incorrect response. The participant performed this task with several randomly selected VCV words until three consecutive correct responses were obtained. The DCR was then administered at the dSHS passing volume. If the dSHS reached 100% and an incorrect or “Didn’t Hear” selection was made, the DCR was administered at 100% volume. Hearing impairment was assessed in the context of cognitive performance in the DCR. Therefore, if participants normally wore hearing aids, they were instructed to wear them during the assessment to mimic their normal hearing conditions as closely as possible.

Statistical Analysis - Analysis was conducted in Matlab v9.3 (Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA). Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to determine if there was a linear relationship between the average PTA and the volume level established by the hearing screener task. PTA thresholds were adapted to fit the nearest standards of hearing impairment established by the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association²⁴ (ASHA). Normal hearing was classified as the reported average loudness of conversational speech²⁵. Impaired hearing was classified using adapted thresholds for severe and profound hearing impairment ²⁵. The maximum value of the audiogram response for the three frequencies was considered an outcome measure; however, PTA was used given its status as the standard clinical measure of hearing impairment.

One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if there was a significant difference between Impaired and Unimpaired groups by the dSHS, where a clinical threshold of moderately impaired hearing²⁴ was used to determine impaired hearing. Two different thresholds to identify the presence of hearing impairment, optimized for distinct contexts, were examined in this study. Each threshold was used to perform a binary classification analysis to determine the dSHS performance in classifying hearing impairment. The first threshold, 35dB, was based on the clinical standard for differentiating normal hearing from hearing impairment ²⁶. The second threshold, 50dB, was intended to maximize the negative predictive value (NPV) in order to optimize the ruling-out greater than moderate hearing impairment. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was calculated to examine the discriminative ability of the dSHS between the Impaired and Unimpaired classes²⁴.

To evaluate the performance of the dSHS in classifying hearing impairment, we used Classification accuracy (Acc) defined as the percentage of participants correctly classified as being impaired or not-impaired. The sensitivity (Sens) is defined as the percentage of participants classified correctly. Similarly, specificity (Spec) is defined as the percentage of impaired participants, correctly identified as such by the system. Positive and negative predictive values were also calculated to provide a measure of the predictive power of positive and negative (Impaired or Unimpaired) classifications. The positive predictive value (PPV) is defined as the proportion of participants, classified as impaired by the system, who were correctly classified. The negative predictive value (NPV) is the proportion of participants, classified as Unimpaired by the system, who are correctly classified. (The data that support the findings of this study are available from R.B. with the permission of Linus Health Inc.).

A total of 50 participants (28 females, mean age ± SD: 73.64 ± 9.5 yrs) completed the hearing screener protocol. On average, the dSHS duration was 2 minutes 46 seconds (± 53s). Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.77 (p < 0.001) between the dSHS results and the PTA audiometric testing and 0.78 (p < 0.001) between the dSHS results and SRT (Fig. 2). Results of a One-way ANOVA showed significant differences in dSHS volumes between the hearing impaired and hearing unimpaired classes as determined by audiogram PTAs and SRTs (F = 38.1, p < 0.0001; Fig. 3).

To assess the classification performance of the dSHS in determining hearing impairment, confusion matrices were constructed by applying a priori thresholds (35 and 50 dB) to the PTA’s and SRT’s. Results of the standard hearing impairment threshold (35dB) model revealed an overall classification accuracy for the dSHS determining PTA-based impairment of 85.7% (Sensitivity = 87.9%; positive predictive value; PPV = 90.6%; NPV = 76.5%; AUC = .87) and 81.6% (Sensitivity = 92.9%; PPV = 90.6%; NPV = 76.5%; AUC = .85) on SRT-based impairment (Table 1; Fig. 4).

Table 1

Comparisons of classification models for Pure Tone Averages (PTA) and Speech Recognition Thresholds at 35 and 50 decibels (dB). *Acc- accuracy; Sens- sensitivity; Spec- specificity; PPV- positive predictive value; NPV- negative predictive value; AUC- area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve.
	PTA at 35dB	PTA at 50dB	SRT at 35dB	SRT at 50dB
Acc (%)	85.71	79.59	81.63	83.67
Sens (%)	87.88	85.71	92.59	100.00
Spec (%)	81.25	77.14	68.18	78.38
PPV (%)	90.63	60.00	78.13	60.00
NPV (%)	76.47	93.10	88.24	100.00
AUC	0.87	0.84	0.85	0.90

Results of the model optimized for NPV as a threshold suited to rule-out potentially severe impairment (50dB) revealed an overall classification accuracy of 79.6% for the dSHS determining PTA-based impairment (Sensitivity = 85.7%; PPV = 60.6%; NPV = 93.1%; AUC = .84) and 83.7% (Sensitivity = 100%; PPV = 60%; NPV = 100%; AUC = .87) for SRT-based impairment (Table 1; Fig. 4)^24,26.

We report the performance of a novel method of screening for hearing impairment in older adults. To our knowledge, this mobile speech-hearing screener is the first digital assessment of its kind to directly compare calibrated mobile device volumes to both standardized speech recognition and pure tone audiometry. This is a time efficient method for screening hearing in adults that allows for easy integration into clinical workflows and immediate reporting of results. Significant differences in dSHS results were demonstrated between impaired and unimpaired hearing groups, as determined by professionally administered pure-tone and speech recognition audiometric testing. The results of this study further suggest that our dSHS is sensitive enough to identify individuals classified as impaired on both standardized pure tone and speech recognition audiometry.

Classification analysis, using thresholds optimized for separate contexts, revealed that the dSHS has excellent sensitivity in classifying impaired hearing at both the mild impairment clinical standard threshold of 35dB and the moderate impairment threshold of 50dB ²⁶. Importantly, the dSHS not only classified the clinical standard PTA-based impairment but also was sensitive to impairment on SRT-based impairment (Table 1). This is important because, despite being highly correlated in our sample, PTAs and SRTs are not equivalent, and can show high variability across individuals ^{12,15,16,22,23}. In addition, it can be difficult to access SRTs in standard clinical practice.

In the context of cognitive screening, reliance on pure-tone tests alone may negatively impact the outcome of cognitive testing given that thresholds are generally higher for speech recognition than for pure-tone recognition. This is a concern for people with hearing impairment because a cognitive test becomes both a test of hearing and a test of cognition when pure tone thresholds are used as the benchmark for a person's speech-hearing ability ^16,23. In other words, cognitive ability is confounded by speech-hearing ability in individuals with hearing impairment. Thus, in these people, a pure tone test will not fully represent their hearing abilities. In fact, research suggests that despite the high correlation between pure tone thresholds and speech recognition thresholds, SRTs tend to be 8-16dB higher than PTAs on average ^{12,15,16,22,23}. As such, speech-hearing ability should not be inferred from pure tone thresholds alone.

Our second classification analysis optimized the NPV of the dSHS and was intended to provide test administrators with insights about when hearing impairment in a screened patient could be reliably ruled out,up to a specified degree. Our results indicate that, passing the dSHS at or below 50% of the device volume reliably rules out hearing impairment greater than moderate levels based on a 50dB cutoff.

At an average duration of 2 minutes 46 seconds, results indicate that the novel dSHS is consistent with the results of audiometric testing. This brief assessment can be self-administered using a commercial-off-the-shelf device, which contributes to its usability and acceptability in standard clinical practice. Unlike other available methods of adult hearing screening, the dSHS described in this work does not rely on the use of headphones and can be administered using the speakers of a mobile device. Importantly, the ability to screen for hearing impairment in under 3 minutes and reliably infer that an individual does not have greater moderate or severe hearing impairment can facilitate the broad screening of hearing deficits, which can streamline treatment and contribute to a substantial reduction of dementia cases in the future²⁷. Furthermore, cognitive tests that deliver auditory stimuli or instructions may be confounded by hearing impairments, and thus, a workflow-friendly hearing screener can also improve the accuracy of cognitive assessments ^28,29.

Several limitations of this study and directions for future research exist. Future research will include a larger sample size to further validate the concordance of hearing-impairment classifications by the dSHS, SRT and PTA in an independent sample. More work will also need to be done to validate the hearing screener in languages other than English. Lastly, the current study only determined the hearing impairment threshold for a single mobile device model (11” iPad Pro). However, in future work, this methodology can be extended to incorporate a broader range of devices and operating systems by ensuring accurate calibration between the volume level and audiometric thresholds to allow for differing volume levels and increase the availability of the dSHS in a larger number of mobile devices.

The Linus Health digital speech hearing screener (dSHS) successfully differentiates between hearing impaired and hearing unimpaired individuals and does so in under 3 minutes. To our knowledge, this mobile speech-hearing screener is the first digital assessment of its kind to directly compare calibrated mobile device volumes to both standardized speech recognition and pure tone audiometry. This novel, digital method for hearing screening represents a means to quickly and easily screen for hearing impairment for various clinical and research purposes. With a rapidly aging global population, cognitive testing for older adults will be a critical part of the healthcare system. Given the known intricate relationship between hearing ability and cognition, the results of this digital speech hearing screener can be used to rule out hearing impairment as a cause, confounding factor or co-morbidity of cognitive impairment.

Competing Interests

DB is a co-founder of Linus Health and declares ownership of shares or share options in the company. RB, BG, IM, MC, JGO, AJ, ST, and JS are employees of Linus Health and declare ownership of shares or share options in the company. Author DW does not have any competing interests to declare. APL is a co-founder of Linus Health and TI Solutions and declares ownership of shares or share options in the company. APL serves as a paid member of the scientific advisory boards for Neuroelectrics, Magstim Inc., TetraNeuron, Skin2Neuron, MedRhythms, and Hearts Radiant, and is listed as an inventor on several issued and pending patents on the real-time integration of transcranial magnetic stimulation with electroencephalography and magnetic resonance imaging, applications of noninvasive brain stimulation in various neurological disorders, as well as digital biomarkers of cognition and digital assessments for early diagnosis of dementia.

Author Contribution

R.B- Study conceptualization, Acquisition of data, Definition of aims of the analysis; Major role in the design of analysis and interpretation of data; Drafting and revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; Approval of final version of the manuscriptB.R.G- Major role in the design of analysis; Analysis and interpretation of data; Drafting and revision of the manuscript for content; Approval of the final version of the manuscriptI.M.- Study investigation; Clinical trial study coordinator; Interpretation of data; Acquisition of data; Drafting and revision of the manuscript for content, including medical writing for content; Approval of final version of the manuscriptM.C.- Interpretation of data; Drafting and revision of the manuscript for content; Approval of the final version of the manuscriptD.W.- Principal Investigator and data collection; Approval of the final version of the manuscriptJ.G.- Drafting and revision of the manuscript for content; Approval of the final version of the manuscriptA.J.- Interpretation of data; Revision of the manuscript for content; Approval of the final version of the manuscriptJ.S.- Interpretation of data; Revision of the manuscript for content; Approval of the final version of the manuscriptD.B.- Interpretation of data; Revision of the manuscript for content; Approval of the final version of the manuscriptS.T- Interpretation of data; Revision of the manuscript for content; Approval of the final version of the manuscriptA.P.L.- Conception and definition of aims of the analysis; Revision of the manuscript for content; Approval of the final version of the manuscript

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from R.B. with the permission of Linus Health Inc.

WHO: 1 in 4 people projected to have hearing problems by 2050. Accessed June 13, 2023. https://www.who.int/news/item/02-03-2021-who-1-in-4-people-projected-to-have-hearing-problems-by-2050
Davies HR, Cadar D, Herbert A, Orrell M, Steptoe A. Hearing Impairment and Incident Dementia: Findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(9):2074–2081. doi:10.1111/jgs.14986
Jiang F, Mishra SR, Shrestha N, et al. Association between hearing aid use and all-cause and cause-specific dementia: an analysis of the UK Biobank cohort. Lancet Public Health. 2023;8(5):e329-e338. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00048-8
Loughrey DG, Kelly ME, Kelley GA, Brennan S, Lawlor BA. Association of Age-Related Hearing Loss With Cognitive Function, Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2018;144(2):115–126. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2017.2513
Ralli M, Gilardi A, Stadio AD, et al. Hearing loss and Alzheimer?s disease: A Review. Int Tinnitus J. 2019;23(2):79–85.
Wei J, Hu Y, Zhang L, et al. Hearing Impairment, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Extra. 2017;7(3):440–452. doi:10.1159/000485178
Davis AC, Hoffman HJ. Hearing loss: rising prevalence and impact. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97(10):646-646A. doi:10.2471/BLT.19.224683
Graydon K, Waterworth C, Miller H, Gunasekera H. Global burden of hearing impairment and ear disease. J Laryngol Otol. 2019;133(1):18–25. doi:10.1017/S0022215118001275
Wayne RV, Johnsrude IS. A review of causal mechanisms underlying the link between age-related hearing loss and cognitive decline. Ageing Res Rev. 2015;23:154–166. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2015.06.002
Deafness and hearing loss. Accessed August 2, 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss
Moore DR, Edmondson-Jones M, Dawes P, et al. Relation between Speech-in-Noise Threshold, Hearing Loss and Cognition from 40–69 Years of Age. PLOS ONE. 2014;9(9):e107720. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107720
Preece J, Fowler C. Relationship of pure-tone averages to speech reception threshold for male and female speakers. J Am Acad Audiol. 1992;3:221–224.
Use of mobile phone based hearing app Hear WHO for self detection of hearing loss | Opast Publishing Group. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.opastpublishers.com/peer-review/use-of-mobile-phone-based-hearing-app-hear-who-for-self-detection-of-hearing-loss-5282.html
Yesantharao LV, Donahue M, Smith A, Yan H, Agrawal Y. Virtual audiometric testing using smartphone mobile applications to detect hearing loss. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2022;7(6):2002–2010. doi:10.1002/lio2.928
Picard M, Banville R, Barbarosie T, Manolache M. Speech audiometry in noise-exposed workers: the SRT-PTA relationship revisited. Audiol Off Organ Int Soc Audiol. 1999;38(1):30–43. doi:10.3109/00206099909073000
Ristovska L, Jachova Z, Kovacevic J, Radovanovic V, Hasanbegovic H. Correlation between pure tone thresholds and speech thresholds. J Hum Res Rehabil. 2021;11:120–125. doi:10.21554/hrr.092108
Hammond EA, Diedesch AC. Usability and perceived benefit of hearing assistive features in Apple AirPods Pro. J Acoust Soc Am. 2023;153(3_supplement):A155. doi:10.1121/10.0018485
Swanepoel DW, De Sousa KC, Smits C, Moore DR. Mobile applications to detect hearing impairment: opportunities and challenges. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97(10):717–718. doi:10.2471/BLT.18.227728
Rentz DM, Papp KV, Mayblyum DV, et al. Association of Digital Clock Drawing With PET Amyloid and Tau Pathology in Normal Older Adults. Neurology. 2021;96(14):e1844-e1854. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000011697
Souillard-Mandar W, Davis R, Rudin C, et al. Learning classification models of cognitive conditions from subtle behaviors in the digital Clock Drawing Test. Mach Learn. 2016;102(3):393–441. doi:10.1007/s10994-015-5529-5
Souillard-Mandar W, Penney D, Schaible B, Pascual-Leone A, Au R, Davis R. DCTclock: Clinically-Interpretable and Automated Artificial Intelligence Analysis of Drawing Behavior for Capturing Cognition. Front Digit Health. 2021;3:750661. doi:10.3389/fdgth.2021.750661
Vermiglio AJ, Soli SD, Freed DJ, Fang X. The Effect of Stimulus Audibility on the Relationship between Pure-Tone Average and Speech Recognition in Noise Ability. J Am Acad Audiol. 2020;31(3):224–232. doi:10.3766/jaaa.19031
He LP. [Relation between pure tone audiometry and speech audiometry in various hearing-impaired listeners]. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi. 1993;28(1):29–31, 59.
Alshuaib WB, Al-Kandari JM, Hasan SM, Alshuaib WB, Al-Kandari JM, Hasan SM. Classification of Hearing Loss. In: Update On Hearing Loss. IntechOpen; 2015. doi:10.5772/61835
Olsen WO. Average Speech Levels and Spectra in Various Speaking/Listening Conditions. Am J Audiol. 1998;7(2):21–25. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(1998/012)
Olusanya BO, Davis AC, Hoffman HJ. Hearing loss grades and the International classification of functioning, disability and health. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97(10):725–728. doi:10.2471/BLT.19.230367
Livingston G, Huntley J, Sommerlad A, et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission. The Lancet. 2020;396(10248):413–446. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30367-6
Yuan J, Sun Y, Sang S, Pham JH, Kong WJ. The risk of cognitive impairment associated with hearing function in older adults: a pooled analysis of data from eleven studies. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):2137. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-20496-w
Lin FR, Pike JR, Albert MS, et al. Hearing intervention versus health education control to reduce cognitive decline in older adults with hearing loss in the USA (ACHIEVE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2023;0(0). doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01406-X

Competing interest reported. DB is a co-founder of Linus Health and declares ownership of shares or share options in the company. RB, BG, IM, MC, JGO, AJ, ST, and JS are employees of Linus Health and declare ownership of shares or share options in the company. Author DW does not have any competing interests to declare. APL is a co-founder of Linus Health and TI Solutions and declares ownership of shares or share options in the company. APL serves as a paid member of the scientific advisory boards for Neuroelectrics, Magstim Inc., TetraNeuron, Skin2Neuron, MedRhythms, and Hearts Radiant, and is listed as an inventor on several issued and pending patents on the real-time integration of transcranial magnetic stimulation with electroencephalography and magnetic resonance imaging, applications of noninvasive brain stimulation in various neurological disorders, as well as digital biomarkers of cognition and digital assessments for early diagnosis of dementia.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 10 Sep, 2024

Read the published version in Scientific Reports →

Editorial decision: Revision requested
27 May, 2024
Reviews received at journal
24 May, 2024
Reviews received at journal
23 May, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
22 May, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
13 May, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
07 May, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
04 May, 2024
Editor invited by journal
25 Apr, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
25 Apr, 2024
First submitted to journal
25 Mar, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Digital Speech Hearing Screening Using A Quick Novel Mobile Hearing Impairment Assessment

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

INTRODUCTION

METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

Conclusion

Declarations

Author Contribution

Data Availability

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1