The Accuracy of Smartphone Sound Level Meter Applications With and Without Calibration.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine the accuracy of smartphone sound level meter applications (SLMAs) with calibration features across stimulus levels and for ambient room noise measures in the clinical setting. Method: The accuracy of 3 iOS-based smartphone SLMAs (SLMA1: Analyzer [Version 2.7.2, DSP Mobile], SLMA2: Sound Level Meter Pro [Version 2.2, Mint Muse LLC], and SLMA3: SPL Meter [Version 9.3, Andrew Smith, Studio Six Digital]), using a single smartphone device (iPhone 6S Model A1688, iOS 9.3.4, Apple), was evaluated with and without calibration using a 1000-Hz narrowband noise (NBN) and white noise (WN) stimuli over a range of sound levels (20-100 dB) and in ambient noise measures of 8 speech and hearing room environments. A simultaneous and corresponding SLMA and Type 1 sound level meter (SLM) measure per condition were documented with a photo image; each condition was replicated 5 times. Mean SLMA and SLM measures were compared. SLMA measures were considered accurate if within ± 2 dB of the SLM. Results: Measures of NBN and WN signals using these SLMAs were accurate at levels above 40-50 dB when calibrated. NBN and WN signals using some SLMAs were significantly (p < .05) more accurate with calibration at levels > 40 to 50 dB. SLMA measures with or without calibration adjustment were inaccurate and overestimated room ambient noise levels < 50 dB. Conclusions: These findings suggest that some SLMAs are accurate for measuring NBN and WN stimuli within the range of 50-100 dB in sound-treated environments when calibrated. However, outcomes indicated that some SLMAs, even with calibration, overestimated low ambient noise levels and may not accurately verify quiet room environments < 50 dB for clinical services. These results should not be generalized for all smartphone types, and continued research on SLMAs using next-generation smartphone devices is warranted.

Influence of Hearing Risk Information on the Motivation and Modification of Personal Listening Device Use.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was (a) to investigate the behaviors, knowledge, and motivators associated with personal listening device (PLD) use and (b) to determine the influence of different types of hearing health risk education information (text with or without visual images) on motivation to modify PLD listening use behaviors in young adults. METHOD: College-age students (N = 523) completed a paper-and-pencil survey tapping their behaviors, knowledge, and motivation regarding listening to music or media at high volume using PLDs. Participants rated their motivation to listen to PLDs at lower volume levels following each of three information sets: text only, behind-the-ear hearing aid image with text, and inner ear hair cell damage image with text. RESULTS: Acoustically pleasing and emotional motives were the most frequently cited (38%-45%) reasons for listening to music or media using a PLD at high volume levels. The behind-the-ear hearing aid image with text information was significantly (p < .0001) more motivating to participants than text alone or the inner ear hair cell damage image with text. CONCLUSIONS: Evocative imagery using hearing aids may be an effective approach in hearing protective health campaigns for motivating safer listening practices with PLDs in young adults.

The Efficacy of Routine Screening for High-Frequency Hearing Loss in Adults and Children.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to investigate the efficacy of routine screening for high-frequency hearing loss (HFHL) including 3000, 6000, and 8000 Hz frequencies with conventional test frequencies (1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz) in adults and children in a university outreach program. METHOD: Screening outcomes were examined in 2 cohorts of adults (Cohort 1, N = 315, M = 66.2 years; Cohort 2, N = 67, M = 68.3 years) and children (Cohort 1, N = 177, M = 6.5 years; Cohort 2, N = 57, M = 6.9 years) with a high-frequency screen protocol (1000-8000 Hz at 25 dB HL for adults and 20 dB HL for children) using supra-aural headphones. A rescreen was conducted in Cohort 2 with a modified protocol using insert earphones and monitored ambient noise levels. RESULTS: Average total test time significantly increased (p < .0001) and nearly doubled with inclusion of 3000-, 6000-, and 8000-Hz frequencies, adding approximately 1 min. Rescreen referral rates decreased by approximately 2%-16% at 1000-8000 Hz (approximately 13%-16% at 6000 and 8000 Hz) using the modified protocol in adults and children, supporting false-positive responses using supra-aural headphones. CONCLUSION: Screening for HFHL should include insert earphones in order to prevent potential errors, particularly at 6000 and 8000 Hz.