A Comparison of Three Methods for Predicting Hearing Loss from Acoustic Reflex Thresholds Previously reported acoustic reflex threshold data from normal and hearing-impaired subjects indicate that the effect of stimulus bandwidth on reflex thresholds is altered by sensorineural hearing loss. It is this change in the “bandwidth effect” that forms the basis for predicting hearing loss from reflex threshold data. Three predictive procedures ... Research Article
Research Article  |   June 01, 1977
A Comparison of Three Methods for Predicting Hearing Loss from Acoustic Reflex Thresholds
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Robert H. Margolis
    UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
  • Cydney M. Fox
    UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
Article Information
Research Articles
Research Article   |   June 01, 1977
A Comparison of Three Methods for Predicting Hearing Loss from Acoustic Reflex Thresholds
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, June 1977, Vol. 20, 241-253. doi:10.1044/jshr.2002.241
History: Received May 18, 1976 , Accepted November 24, 1976
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, June 1977, Vol. 20, 241-253. doi:10.1044/jshr.2002.241
History: Received May 18, 1976; Accepted November 24, 1976

Previously reported acoustic reflex threshold data from normal and hearing-impaired subjects indicate that the effect of stimulus bandwidth on reflex thresholds is altered by sensorineural hearing loss. It is this change in the “bandwidth effect” that forms the basis for predicting hearing loss from reflex threshold data. Three predictive procedures were compared for 17 normal and 60 hearing-impaired ears. All methods correctly identified most hearing losses but none of the methods accurately estimated magnitude of hearing loss. Two methods were characterized by a high rate of false positives. The third was tailored to minimize false positives (6%) and maintain a high rate (93%) of predicting hearing losses greater than 32 dB while making no attempt to make finer discriminations. This more conservative approach minimizes serious predictive errors while identifying a high proportion of clinically significant hearing losses.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access