View Tag: ‘testing’
In the history of audiology, many new ideas and methods have come and gone. Some things that were once new, are now gone and some brilliant methods to evaluate hearing, such as the Bekesy audiometry and the tone-decay test, appear to have been abandoned. I don’t know why because they were so informative.
John Franks shares a story from the 1970s where an unfortunate oversight led to an unconventional treatment discovery.
The “golden rule” for performing an audiometric test requires the use of a booth; however, there are circumstances where booths are absent.
We must establish conventions for physiological testing (devices and signal processing) and adopt them internationally; conduct additional thoughtful experiments; implement tighter controls (age, biological sex, occupation); and because the effects of hearing damage on physiological function are likely small, drastically increase the sample sizes of studies. No matter the outcome, at a minimum, patients with tinnitus will likely require assessment beyond the conventional audiogram for clinicians to better understand the status of the ear.
To help address the problem of limited access to testing and diagnosis in at-risk populations, our research group has partnered with businesses and healthcare organizations to use SHOEBOX QuickTest to systematically identify patients with hearing loss as a routine part of hospital care.
Clearly, quantifying an internal perception such as a phantom sound is not a trivial task, especially when there is no clear cause.
Gael lets us know about the importance of audiologist being aware of the anxiety caused by hearing tests.
Bob’s column for this issue discusses knowledge translation in relation to clinical hearing tests.
In this issue of Noisy Notes, Alberto Behar gives us a nice overview of the new edition of the CSA Standard on audiometric tests which was issued during the last month of 2017.
Gael Hannan tells us why it’s time for Canada to implement a national standard of newborn hearing screening and how the high cost of not doing so is far greater.