中文版老年听力障碍筛查量表评分与纯音听阈测试的比较研究

目的探讨中文版老年听力障碍筛查量表(hearing handicap inventory for the elderly-screening,HHIE-S)评分与纯音听阈测试的关联性与差异性,为该量表的临床应用提供依据。方法275例老年受试者(听力正常者47例、不同程度听力损失者228例)填写中文版HHIE-S量表获得评分,并进行纯音听阈测试,比较受试者中文版HHIE-S量表评分与较好耳500、1000、2000、4000 Hz纯音气导听阈平均值(PTA)之间的关联性与差异性。结果275例受试者中,PTA正常组47例,HHIE-S评分为无听力障碍者占80.85%(38/47);PTA轻度听力损失组101例,HHIE-S评分为轻中度听障者占38.61%(39/101);PTA中度听力损失组110例,HHIE-S评分为轻中度听障者占40.0%(44/110);PTA重度听力损失组17例,HHIE-S评分为重度听障者占82.35%(14/17)。HHIE-S与纯音听阈测试结果的Kappa系数为0.210(P<0.001)。HHIE-S评分与PTA的Pearson相关系数r为0.722(P<0.001)。以PTA≤25 dB HL为听力正常、HHIE-S评分≤8分表示无听力障碍,HHIE-S量表的敏感性为61.0%,特异性为80.9%,阳性预测值为93.9%,阴性预测值为29.9%。结论HHIE-S量表与纯音听阈测试既有较好的关联性,又有差异性,二者联合应用可以全面评估老年人的听力状况。     

基于决策树智能算法的2步纯音听力筛查在社区老年人中的应用

目的 探索基于决策树智能算法的2步纯音听力筛查在基层医疗单位大范围快速检出中度及以上听力损失者的可行性和科学性.方法 对某社区399例老年人进行2步纯音听力筛查(即用0.5 kHz、47 dB HL和2 kHz、42 dB HL两个固定频率和强度的纯音分2步测听)及中文版老年听力障碍筛查量表(Chinese versi...     

老年听力障碍筛查量表在老年性聋调查中的应用与相关性分析

目的　探讨老年听力障碍筛查（h e a r i n g handicap inventory for the elderly-screening,HHIE-S）量表在老年人听力筛查中的应用价值,并分析其敏感性和特 异性。方法　对400例60岁以上老年人进行HHIE-S问卷调查及纯音听阈测试,以纯音测听较好耳的平均听阈,计算听力下降水平,分析HHIE-S在老年人听力筛查中的应用价值;依据世界卫生组织（WHO1997）听力障碍分级标准,并参照美国言语听力协会听力筛查指南标准,将HHIE-S量表得分＞８分定义为存在听力障碍,探讨HHIE-S量表对不同程度听力损失老年人听力筛查的敏感性和特异性及与纯音测听的相关性。结果　HHIE-S量表可以对老年人的听力障碍进行筛查,反映了听力下降对受试者生理和言语交流的影响。①HHIE-S量表敏感性分别是轻度听力损失65.70%、中度听力损失78.40%、重度听力损失98.90%。②HHIE-S量表特异性分别为轻度听力损失94.00%、中度听力损失82.80%、重度听力损失65.60%。③对听力损失阳性预测值分别为轻度98.70%、中度94.80%和重度51.10%;假阳性率分别为轻度6.00%、中度17.20%和重度34.40%;假阴性率分别为轻度34.30%、中度21.60%和重度1.10%。④HHIE-S量表与老年人听力损失程度相关系数分别为0.215、0.586和0.391（P 均<0.001）,有统计学意义。结论　HHIE-S量表简单易行,对于评估听力损失程度具有较高敏感性和特异性,与纯音测听有很好相关性,在老年人听力筛查中具有实 用性和有效性。     

筛选型老年听力障碍量表的研译及其信度和效度评价

目的：研译中文版筛选型老年听力障碍量表（the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly－screen-ing version,HHIE－S）,并检验其信度和效度。方法将英文版 HHIE－S 源量表经过翻译、回译、文化调试等步骤形成中文版 HHIE－S,采用直接采访法,对170例年龄≥65岁听力正常或老年性聋人群进行中文版 HHIE－S量表问卷调查,并进行纯音听阈测试,1～2周后再重复进行一次量表调查。结果研译后的中文版 HHIE－S 量表的10个条目均有较强关联性,量表分为情感和情境2个维度,其 Cronbach’s α系数分别为0．889和0．924,总 Cron-bach’s α系数为0．935;各维度分半信度分别为0．836和0．903,总分半信度为0．836;各条目与维度的重测信度值在0．749至0．921之间,总量表重测信度为0．963。内容效度：各条目与所在维度间相关系数在0．750和0．927之间,与量表总分间的相关系数在0．659和0．878之间。因子分析提取出2个公因子,即情感和情境两个维度,总方差解释率为73．874％。各条目的因子负荷均在0．684和0．871之间,所有条目在相应因子上的因子负荷均＞0．60,与源量表结构一致。量表的两个维度和总分与纯音听阈间呈正相关。结论研译的中文版 HHIE－S 符合汉语语言文化特点,易被老年人群接受;量表的结构稳定,具有较好的信度和效度,可用于老年人听力障碍的初步筛查。     

佛山市10238例新生儿听力与耳聋易感基因联合筛查分析

目的：分析新生儿听力与耳聋易感基因联合筛查的结果,探讨基因筛查的意义和基因型与表型的潜在联系。方法对2012年5月至2013年12月在佛山市出生的10238例新生儿采用 AABR 进行听力初筛和复筛,并采集足跟血行耳聋易感基因突变热点检测,对听力筛查结果和耳聋易感基因检测结果进行统计学对比分析。结果10238例新生儿听力初筛通过率99．16％（10150/10238）,母婴同室新生儿（99．43％,9242/9295）比NICU 新生儿（96．29％,908/943）听力初筛通过率高,差异有统计学意义（χ2＝99．1,P＜0．001）,而两组新生儿听力复筛通过率差异无统计学意义（χ2＝0．26,P＝0．61）。听力筛查阳性者中确诊听力损失者11例（1．07‰,11/10238）,均为双耳中度到极重度听力损失。新生儿基因突变阳性率3．08％（315/10238）,高于听力初筛的未通过率（0．84％）（χ2＝123．9,P＜0．001）。其中,GJB2 c．235delC 杂合突变165例,纯合缺失4例;c．299300delAT 杂合突变20例;c．176191del16杂合突变6例;未检测到 c．35delG 位点突变。SLC26A4 c．919－2A＞G 杂合突变82例,纯合突变3例;c．2168A＞G 杂合突变12例。MTRNR11555A＞G 异质性突变4例,同质性突变18例;1494C＞T 同质性突变1例。GJB2 c．235delC 和 SLC26A4 c．919－2A＞G 突变的新生儿中8例在出生25个月内确诊为中度到极重度感音神经性聋。结论新生儿耳聋易感基因筛查是对传统新生儿听力筛查的必要补充,有利于早期发现耳聋高危人群,预警潜在或迟发性耳聋的发生与及早干预。     

成人听力障碍筛查量表和噪声下数字言语测试在听力损失患者中的应用[论著]

目的　研究成人听力障碍筛查量表（hearing handicap inventory for adult-screening,HHIA-S）、噪声下数字言语测试（digits in noise,DIN）与听力损失的相关性,分析HHIA-S与DIN在听力损失诊断中的灵敏度和特异度。方法　本研究招募听力正常者29名、感音神经性听力损失患者38例,按双耳纯音听阈平均值PTA0.5～4 kHz分为轻度组19例,中度组10例,重度组9例,依次完成纯音听阈测试、声导抗测试、听力损失自我报告、HHIA-S量表以及DIN测试。采用线性相关分析HHIA-S得分、DIN阈值与纯音听阈平均值的相关性,采用受试者工作特性曲线（receiver operating characteristic,ROC）及曲线下面积（area under the curve,AUC）确定DIN在最佳诊断截点下的灵敏度和特异度。结果  ①本组受试者HHIA-S得分、DIN阈值与纯音平均听阈PTA0.5～4 kHz之间均呈显著相关性（P <0.01）;②将HHIA-S得分＞8分定义为存在听力障碍,结果显示HHIA-S量表发现听力损失的灵敏度为0.684,特异度为0.967;③DIN的最佳诊断截点（cut-off）为-16.1 dB,判断听力损失的灵敏度为0.894,特异度为1,均高于HHIA-S量表及听力损失自我报告。结论　DIN作为一种快速、有效且经济、便捷的听力筛查手段,其灵敏度和特异度均高于成人听力障碍筛查量表及听力损失自我报告。     

噪声下数字言语测试联合听力障碍筛查量表在职业性噪声性听力损失患者中的应用

目的 探究噪声下数字言语测试(digital speech test under noise,DIN)联合听力障碍筛查量表(hearing impairment screening scule,HHIA-S)在职业性噪声性听力损失患者中的应用价值。方法 选择职业性噪声性听力损失患者102例作为研究组,按双耳纯音听阈平均值PTA_{0.5～4 kHz}(双耳在500、1000、2000、4000 Hz纯音听阈平均值)分为轻度组(26～40 dB HL)51例、中度组(41～60 dB HL)27例、重度组(61～80 dB HL)24例;另选取听力正常健康体检者90例作为对照组。全部行纯音听阈测试、声导抗测试、DIN及HHIA-S测试。比较各组各指标测试结果,并绘制受试者工作特性曲线(receiver operating chara cteristc curve,ROC)分析其相应的关系。结果 研究组PTA_{0.5～4 kHz}、DIN及HHIA-S评分均显著高于对照组高(P<0.05)。其中重度组PTA_{0.5～4 kHz}、D...     

546例新生儿耳聋基因与听力联合筛查结果分析

目的：探讨新生儿耳聋基因与听力联合筛查的意义。方法对2014年6～12月出生的546例新生儿,采集足跟血进行基因测序,对常见的4个耳聋基因的20个位点进行筛查;包括 GJB2（35delG、167delT、176＿191de116、235delC、299＿300delAT）,GJB3（538C→ T、547G→A）,SLC26A4（281C→ T、589G→ A、IVS7－2A→ G、1174A→T、1226G→ A、1229C → T、IVS15＋5G → A、1975G → C、2027T → A、2162C → T、2168A → G ）,线粒体DNA12S rRNA（1494C→T、1555A→G）,同时利用 TEOAE和AABR进行联合听力筛查。结果546例中,22例（4．03％,22／546）有耳聋基因突变,包括：GJB2基因突变14例,占2．56％（14／546）;SLC26A4基因突变7例,占1．28％（7／546）;线粒体DNA12SrRNA基因突变1例,占0．18％（1／546）。听力初筛未通过25例（4．58％,25／546）,25例均进行复筛,复筛未通过12例,确诊9例听力损失,其中双耳极重度听力损失1例,双耳重度听力损失2例,双耳中度听力损失2例,左耳中度听力损失4例,这9例中8例耳聋基因筛查异常。结论单纯进行听力筛查或者单纯进行耳聋基因筛查可能会漏掉部分耳聋患儿,新生儿耳聋基因联合听力筛查,有利于耳聋儿童的早期发现与早期干预。     

玉林市2009～2011年间新生儿听力筛查情况分析

目的分析玉林市妇幼保健院2009～2011年新生儿听力筛查情况。方法2009～2011年间玉林市妇幼保健院出生的13787例新生儿,在出生后3～7天接受DPOAE初筛,初筛未通过者生后30～42天接受DPOAE及AABR复筛,复筛未通过者2～3月龄时再次接受DPOAE及AABR测试,未通过者为听力筛查阳性的新生儿,对筛查阳性者进行跟踪随访。结果13787例接受听力筛查的新生儿中,512例确定为听力筛查阳性,其中272例转诊行听力学诊断,转诊率为53．13％,确诊听力损失42例（占15．44％,42/272）,本组新生儿听力损失的检出率为3．05‰（42/13787）。240例（46．87％）听力筛查阳性者失访,失访原因中家长不重视146例（60．83％）,路途不便66例（27．50％）,地址不详28例（11．67％）。结论玉林市妇幼保健院新生儿听力损失检出率为3．05‰,听力筛查失访率较高,应加强新生儿听力筛查管理工作。     

老年性听力损失患者普通话双音节词表测试结果分析

目的 探讨老年性听力损失患者的言语识别特点.方法 以59例老年性听力损失患者(老年听损组)为研究对象,年龄61～84岁,平均71.3±6.7岁,其中男23人,女36人,根据较好耳0.5、1、2、4 kHz平均气导听阈(pure tone average,PTA)分为轻度听力损失组(10例)、中度听力损失组(35例)、重度以上听力损失组(14例);以11例听力正常老年人作为对照组;以普通话言语测听材料中的9张双音节词表分别测试各组的言语识别阈(speech recognition threshold,SRT)和言语识别率,并建立识别-强度函数曲线(P-I函数曲线),比较各组的结果.结果 老年听损组PTA(51.65±11.98 dB HL)、SRT(50.98±16.05 dBHL)明显高于对照组(PTA19.55±4.55 dB HL、SRT 18.79土7.45 dB HL),老年听损组P-I函数曲线平均斜率(2.63％±1.59％/dB)低于对照组(4.65％±1.46％/dB) (P＜0.01);老年听损男性组SRT值(56.54±17.23 dB HL)高于女性(47.99±15.63dBHL) (P＜0.05);三组不同程度老年听损组的PTA和SRT明显高于对照组,随着听力损失程度的加重,PTA、SRT阈值明显增高,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);不同程度听损各组的P-I函数曲线斜率(轻度组2.47％±1.59％/dB,中度组2.76％±1.59％/dB,重度以上组2.42％±1.69％/dB)明显低于对照组(4.65％±1.46％/dB)(P＜0.01),不同程度听损组间P-I函数曲线斜率比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 老年性听力损失患者言语识别阈升高,且男性高于女性,P-I函数曲线平均斜率下降,曲线右移呈平缓型;随着听力损失程度的加重,其言语识别阈升高更显著.     

Analysing use of the Chinese HHIE-S for hearing screening of elderly in a northeastern industrial area of China

Objective: The aim of the present study was to investigate the use of Chinese version of HHIE-S as a hearing screening tool for the elderly in an industrial area in northeast China. Design: Prevalence, sensitivity and specificity of Chinese version of HHIE-S were calculated. Factors that had impact on HHIE-S were analysed. Study sample: Five hundred and seventy Mandarin speaking participants, aged from 50 to 85 years were included. They were tested with pure tone audiometry and Chinese version of HHIE-S. Results: The prevalence of hearing handicap was 55.3%. The sensitivity and specificity of HHIE-S were 84.5% and 58.3% respectively when the pass/fail criteria were set at PTA^0.5–4kHz >40 dBHL. In general, HHIE-S total and subscale scores were significantly associated with severity of hearing impairment. After stratified by severity of hearing impairment, both the prevalence of reported handicap and the scores of HHIE-S were not significantly associated with age. Male participants had significantly higher HHIE-S scores than female participants did. Conclusions: The Chinese version of HHIE-S contributes useful information to identifying hearing handicap and addressing the rehabilitative needs in the elderly in an industrial city in Mainland China.     

Relationship between self-reported hearing and measured hearing impairment in an elderly population in Finland

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the Finnish version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly Screening (HHIE-S) questionnaire and a simple single-question method in detecting hearing loss. Design: We compared the HHIE-S score and the single question with audiometry results. By analysing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the HHIE-S scores we estimated the appropriate cut-off points for the different degrees of hearing loss. Study Sample: 164 home-dwelling subjects in the age cohorts of 70, 75, 80 and 85 years in an industrialized town in Finland filled in the questionnaire, and attended the audiometry. Results: For the detection of moderate or worse hearing loss (i.e., pure tone average at 0.5-4 kHz frequencies >40 dB), the HHIE-S cut-off score of >8 had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 59.7%. The single question had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 70.7%. Thus, the single question was equally sensitive and more specific in detecting moderate or worse hearing loss than the HHIE-S score. However, for the detection of mild hearing loss (i.e., pure tone average >25 dB), the HHIE-S was more sensitive but less specific than the single question.

Sumario

Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la utilidad de la versión finlandesa del Cuestionario para la Identificación de Discapacidad Auditiva de Adultos Mayores (HHIE-S) y la de un método simple de una sola pregunta para detectar pérdidas auditivas. Diseño: Comparamos la puntuación del HHIE-S y de la pregunta aislada con los resultados audiométricos. Al analizar las curvas caracter sticas de operación del receptor (ROC) y las puntuaciones del HHIE-S, estimamos los puntos de corte apropiados para los diferentes grados de pérdida auditiva. Muestra de Estudio: Llenaron el cuestionario 164 sujetos que vivían en sus propias casas, pertenecientes a las cohortes de edad de 70, 75, 80 y 85 ańos, en una localidad industrializada de Finlandia y que se sometieron a la audiometría. Resultados: Para la identificación de pérdidas moderadas o peores (p. ej. promedio de tonos puros en las frecuencias de 0.5–4 kHz, >40 dB), la puntuación para el corte del HHIE-S en >8, tuvo una sensibilidad de 100% y una especificidad de 59.7%. La pregunta aislada tuvo una sensibilidad de 100% y una especificidad de 70.7%. Por esto, la pregunta aislada fue igualmente sensible pero más específica para la identificación de pérdidas auditivas moderadas o peores que la puntuación del HHIE-S. No obstante, para la identificación de pérdidas leves (p. ej. promedio de tonos puros >25 dB), el HHIE-S tuvo mayor sensibilidad aunque su especificidad fue menor que para la pregunta aislada.     

Cross-cultural adaptation of an Arabic version of the 10-item hearing handicap inventory

Objective: The purpose of this study was to translate and culturally adapt an Arabic version of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly - screening (HHIE-S). Design: The HHIE-S was translated following cross-cultural adaptation guidelines, and pretested in 20 elderly patients with hearing impairment. Next, the adapted Arabic HHIE-S underwent psychometric evaluation. The results were confirmed by pure-tone audiometer (PTA) examination. The patients completed the HHIE-S again after one hour. The validation of the questionnaire using Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency), (construct validity), and intraclass correlation coefficients (repeatability) was performed. Study sample: Twenty elderly subjects with hearing impairment were recruited for the pretesting stage, and 100 elderly subjects were recruited for the psychometric evaluation stage. Patients with acute illness, functional dependency, cognitive impairment, and previous users of hearing aids were excluded. Results: The adapted Arabic HHIE-S showed good internal consistency (α = 0.902). Construct validity was good, as high correlations were found between the scale and the PTA outcome (r = 0.688, p = 0.000). Repeatability was high (ICC = 0.986). Conclusions: This study showed that the adapted Arabic HHIE-S is a valid and reliable questionnaire for the assessment of handicapping hearing impairment in Egyptian elderly patients.     

A hearing self-reported survey in people over 80 years of age in China by hearing handicap inventory for the elderly–complete version vs screening version

Conclusion: HHIE-S can be a useful tool in investigating hearing loss among people over 80 years old, with the same validity as HHIE. Objective: To investigate the effect of hearing loss on the quality-of-life in people over 80 years of age in China, and to compare the results of the Chinese mandarin version Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) and its screening version (HHIE-S). Methods: Eighty-four people over 80 years participated in the study. Both HHIE and HHIE-S were completed, and the hearing handicap degrees were rated according to HHIE scores and HHIE-S scores, respectively. Results obtained by HHIE and HHIE-S were compared. Multi-factor analysis of variance was used to analyze the impact of eight factors on hearing handicap in the oldest old people over 80 years of age, including age, noise exposure, ear surgery, infection, ototoxic drugs use, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, diabetes, and tumors. Results: Both HHIE and HHIE-S revealed 48 subjects (57.1%) with no self-perceived hearing problem, and 36 subjects (42.9%) with hearing handicap. No statistical difference was found between results of the functional hearing handicap rating by HHIE and HHIE-S (Chi-square?=?1.532, p?=?0.465). The HHIE and HHIE-S were in agreement with each other (kappa?=?0.772, p?p?>?0.05), except noise exposure on S-score of HHIE-S (p?=?0.032), and the R-squares of these factors were less than 5%.     

Discriminating and responsiveness abilities of two hearing handicap scales

Several scales exist for screening handicap and assessing rehabilitation in elderly individuals with hearing loss. There are few comparative studies, however, to suggest which scales perform best. Using receiver-operating curves and responsiveness indices, we examined the relative discriminating ability and sensitivity to detect change of four scales: a long and short version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory in the Elderly (HHIE-L, HHIE-S), and a long and short version of the Revised Quantified Denver Scale of Communication Function (RQDS-L, RQDS-S). All scales were administered to 137 elderly veterans with hearing loss and 101 elderly veterans without hearing loss. Follow-up testing to determine relative ability to detect change was assessed in hearing impaired individuals only after they had used a hearing aid for 4 months. Discriminative accuracy for correctly identifying individuals with hearing loss were: HHIE-L 78%, HHIE-S 79%, RQDS-L 73%, and RQDS-S 74%. Overall differences between the HHIE-S and the RQDS-S were not statistically significant (p = 0.06). True positive results were greater with the HHIE-S compared to the RQDS-S (p = 0.03). Responsiveness indices were: HHIE-L 1.78, HHIE-S 1.86, RQDS-L 1.04, and RQDS-S 1.07. Differences between the HHIE-S and the RQDS-S were statistically significant (p less than 0.05). We conclude short versions of the HHIE and RQDS are as accurate and sensitive for detecting change as long versions, and the HHIE-S is a superior versatile instrument for screening and assessing rehabilitation in elderly individuals with hearing impairment.     

老年性聋患者普通话快速噪声下言语测试及评估

目的评估老年性聋患者噪声下言语识别能力,探讨年龄、听力损失程度、认知功能对其噪声下言语识别能力的影响。方法选取2018年10月~2020年4月就诊的70例60岁及以上老年性聋患者为研究对象,按年龄分为60~69岁(20例40耳)、70~79岁(28例56耳)、≥80岁(22例44耳)三组,各组分别进行纯音听阈测试、简易智能精神状态量表(mini-mental state examination,MMSE)评估及普通话快速噪声下言语测试(Mandarin quick speech-in-noise test,M-Quick SIN),分别获得双耳0.5、1、2、4 kHz纯音平均听阈(pure-tone audiometry,PTA)、MMSE量表总得分及双耳信噪比损失(signal-to-noise ratio loss,SNR loss);分析年龄、平均听阈、MMSE量表得分对信噪比损失的影响。结果①60~69岁组SNR loss(5.25±5.42)dB明显小于70~79岁组(11.54±6.05)dB和≥80岁组(11.86±6.06)dB(P<0.01);70~79岁组和≥80岁组间SNR loss差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。②SNR loss随PTA提高而升高,各组间差异均有显著统计学意义(P<0.01)。③MMSE量表得分对SNR loss的主效应不显著(P>0.05)。结论年龄、听力损失程度为老年性聋患者噪声下言语识别的主要影响因素;在一定范围内随着年龄增加,听力损失加重,其噪声下言语识别能力降低。     

单音节最大言语识别率与纯音听力不成比例下降的判定

目的 建立汉语普通话单音节最大言语识别率与纯音听力不成比例下降的判定标准.方法 对165名确诊为感音神经性聋的患者使用ER-3A插入式耳机分别进行双耳纯音测听和言语测听.以自行编制的言语测听软件播放音位平衡的普通话单音节测听表,每表25个单音节测试项的播放顺序可实现随机.同一耳别始终使用同一张表,以该耳所有纯音测听频率中的最小听阈减去5 dB作为起始测听强度,以5 dB为步距逐渐提高测试强度,获得患者该侧耳的言语识别率-强度(P-I)函数关系,读取最大言语识别率PBmax.根据气导纯音听力图计算三频率平均纯音听阈(pure tone average,PTA)PTA1(0.5、1、2 kHz)、PTA2(1、2、4 kHz)以及四频率平均纯音听阈PTA3(0.5、1、2、4 kHz);同时计算0.5、1、2 kHz与4 kHz纯音听阈的差值Slope0.5、Slope1、Slope2作为听力图高频走势的指征.利用SPSS10.0统计软件分析PBmax与以上因素的相关性.结果 PBmax与听力图高频走势Slope无相关性,但与纯音听阈呈负相关,尤与PTA3相关性最大(r=-0.595,P=0.000).基于由PBmax与PTA3所绘制的散点图的下缘,可建立起包含99%观测值的言语识别率下限,其函数表达式为PBmax=100-10×PTA3/11.结论 感音神经性聋患者依据纯音0.5、1、2、4 kHz的平均听阈可确定其言语识别率下限,PBmax得分若低于此界限,则可认定其言语识别率与纯音听力不成比例地下降.     

单音节最大言语识别率与纯音听力不成比例下降的判定

目的 建立汉语普通话单音节最大言语识别率与纯音听力不成比例下降的判定标准.方法 对165名确诊为感音神经性聋的患者使用ER-3A插入式耳机分别进行双耳纯音测听和言语测听.以自行编制的言语测听软件播放音位平衡的普通话单音节测听表,每表25个单音节测试项的播放顺序可实现随机.同一耳别始终使用同一张表,以该耳所有纯音测听频率中的最小听阈减去5 dB作为起始测听强度,以5 dB为步距逐渐提高测试强度,获得患者该侧耳的言语识别率-强度(P-I)函数关系,读取最大言语识别率PBmax.根据气导纯音听力图计算三频率平均纯音听阈(pure tone average,PTA)PTA1(0.5、1、2 kHz)、PTA2(1、2、4 kHz)以及四频率平均纯音听阈PTA3(0.5、1、2、4 kHz);同时计算0.5、1、2 kHz与4 kHz纯音听阈的差值Slope0.5、Slope1、Slope2作为听力图高频走势的指征.利用SPSS10.0统计软件分析PBmax与以上因素的相关性.结果 PBmax与听力图高频走势Slope无相关性,但与纯音听阈呈负相关,尤与PTA3相关性最大(r=-0.595,P=0.000).基于由PBmax与PTA3所绘制的散点图的下缘,可建立起包含99%观测值的言语识别率下限,其函数表达式为PBmax=100-10×PTA3/11.结论 感音神经性聋患者依据纯音0.5、1、2、4 kHz的平均听阈可确定其言语识别率下限,PBmax得分若低于此界限,则可认定其言语识别率与纯音听力不成比例地下降.