Background: Technological developments to treat hearing loss with different types of hearing aids and auditory implants have improved the auditory perception of patients, particularly in highly complex listening conditions. These devices can be fitted and adapted to enhance speech perception. Audiological tests that assess hearing with and without auditory devices have traditionally taken place in sound-attenuated audiometric booths. Although the insights gained from these tests are extremely useful, they do not accurately reflect everyday listening situations, and accurate information about the potential benefits of the hearing device in real acoustic scenarios cannot be established. Consequently, it is difficult to optimize this technology since fitting cannot be customized. Objectives: The aim of this study was to validate an audiological testing method using a new development, the Realistic Environment Audiometric Booth (REAB), in clinical practice. Materials: We used specifically designed software to perform audiological tests in an 8 m2 sound-attenuated booth. The REAB was designed to conduct audiological tests in standard testing conditions and in new hearing scenarios that simulate real-life situations since sound can be emitted simultaneously or alternately 360° around the patient, along with 3D images. Methods: Prospective study in which subjects were tested randomly in the REAB and the conventional booth (CB) in free field. Results: 150 subjects were recruited, mean age 56 ± 20.7 years. Auditory outcomes for pure-tone audiometry showed a high correlation; this was also the case for speech audiometries in quiet and in noise. The outcome of the new scenarios with real-life noise was plotted, including the mean values and their confidence intervals. A decreasing trend was observed in the results obtained by the different groups, according to their hearing levels. Conclusions: We have developed and validated a new audiological testing method that enables hearing ability to be assessed in listening conditions similar to those found in real life. The REAB complements the tests performed in CBs, thereby aiding the diagnostic process by reproducing acoustic and visual scenarios that conventional tests do not offer.

1.
Ahrens
A
,
Lund
KD
,
Marschall
M
,
Dau
T
.
Sound source localization with varying amount of visual information in virtual reality
.
PLoS One
.
2019
;
14
(
3
):
e0214603
. .
2.
Bland
JM
,
Altman
DG
.
Measuring agreement in method comparison studies
.
Stat Methods Med Res
.
1999
;
8
(
2
):
135
60
. .
3.
Boyle
PJ
,
Nunn
TB
,
O’Connor
AF
,
Moore
BC
.
STARR: a speech test for evaluation of the effectiveness of auditory prostheses under realistic conditions
.
Ear Hear
.
2013
;
34
(
2
):
203
12
. .
4.
Bronkhorst
A
.
The cocktail party phenomenon: a review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions
.
Acta Acust Acust
.
2000
;
86
:
117
28
.
5.
Brungart
DS
,
Simpson
BD
,
Ericson
MA
,
Scott
KR
.
Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
2001
;
110
(
5 Pt 1
):
2527
. .
6.
Brungart
DS
,
Sheffield
BM
,
Kubli
LR
.
Development of a test battery for evaluating speech perception in complex listening environments
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
2014
;
136
(
2
):
777
90
. .
7.
Bureau International d’Audiophonologie
.
Recomendaciones BIAP
.
1997. [cited 2019 Oct 30]
.
Available from: http://www.biap.org
.
8.
Cherry
EC
.
Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
1953
;
25
(
5
):
975
9
. .
9.
Freyman
RL
,
Helfer
KS
,
McCall
DD
,
Clifton
RK
.
The role of perceived spatial separation in the unmasking of speech
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
1999
;
106
(
6
):
3578
88
. .
10.
Haumann
S
,
Lenarz
T
,
Büchner
A
.
Speech perception with cochlear implants as measured using a roving-level adaptive test method
.
ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec
.
2010
;
72
(
6
):
312
8
. .
11.
Hochmuth
S
,
Brand
T
,
Zokoll
MA
,
Castro
FZ
,
Wardenga
N
,
Kollmeier
B
.
A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise
.
Int J Audiol
.
2012
;
51
(
7
):
536
44
. .
12.
Huarte
A
.
The Castilian Spanish hearing in noise test
.
Int J Audiol
.
2008
;
47
(
6
)
369
70
.
13.
Lin
LI
.
A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility
.
Biometrics
.
1989
;
45
(
1
):
255
68
. .
14.
Madell
JR
,
Flexer
C
.
Pediatric audiology: diagnosis, technology and management. 2
.
NY
:
Thieme Medical Publishers
;
2014
. p.
99
100
.
15.
Nábĕlek
AK
,
Letowski
TR
,
Tucker
FM
.
Reverberant overlap- and self-masking in consonant identification
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
1989
;
86
:
1259
65
.
16.
Neuman
AC
,
Wroblewski
M
,
Hajicek
J
,
Rubinstein
A
.
Combined effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition performance of normal-hearing children and adults
.
Ear Hear
.
2010
;
31
(
3
):
336
44
. .
17.
Pollack
I
.
Auditory informational masking
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
1975
;
57
(
S1
):
S5
. .
18.
Pyler
PN
,
Tardy
B
,
Hedrick
M
.
The effects of nonlinear frequency compression and digital noise reduction on word recognition and satisfaction ratings in noise in adult hearing aid users
.
J Am Acad Audiol
.
2019
;
30
(
2
):
103
14
.
19.
Seeber
BU
,
Kerber
S
,
Hafter
ER
.
A system to simulate and reproduce audio-visual environments for spatial hearing research
.
Hear Res
.
2010
;
260
(
1–2
):
1
10
. .
20.
Watson
CS
.
Some comments on informational masking
.
Acta Acust Acust
.
2005
;
91
:
502
12
.
21.
Watson
CS
,
Kelly
WJ
,
Wroton
HW
.
Factors in the discrimination of tonal patterns. II. Selective attention and learning under various levels of stimulus uncertainty
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
1976
;
60
(
5
):
1176
86
. .
22.
Westermann
A
,
Buchholz
JM
.
The effect of spatial separation in distance on the intelligibility of speech in rooms
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
2015
;
137
(
2
):
757
67
. .
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.