Common Audiological Functional Parameters (CAFPAs): statistical and compact representation of rehabilitative audiological classification based on expert knowledge

Abstract Objective: As a step towards objectifying audiological rehabilitation and providing comparability between different test batteries and clinics, the Common Audiological Functional Parameters (CAFPAs) were introduced as a common and abstract representation of audiological knowledge obtained from diagnostic tests. Design: Relationships between CAFPAs as an intermediate representation between diagnostic tests and audiological findings, diagnoses and treatment recommendations (summarised as “diagnostic cases”) were established by means of an expert survey. Expert knowledge was collected for 14 given categories covering different diagnostic cases. For each case, the experts were asked to indicate expected ranges of diagnostic test outcomes, as well as traffic light-encoded CAFPAs. Study sample: Eleven German experts in the field of audiological rehabilitation from Hanover and Oldenburg participated in the survey. Results: Audiological findings or treatment recommendations could be distinguished by a statistical model derived from the experts' answers for CAFPAs as well as audiological tests. Conclusions: The CAFPAs serve as an abstract, comprehensive representation of audiological knowledge. If more detailed information on certain functional aspects of the auditory system is required, the CAFPAs indicate which information is missing. The statistical graphical representations for CAFPAs and audiological tests are suitable for audiological teaching material; they are universally applicable for real clinical databases.

[1]  Dong Yu,et al.  Improved Bottleneck Features Using Pretrained Deep Neural Networks , 2011, INTERSPEECH.

[2]  Hans-Georg Boenninghaus,et al.  Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde , 2001 .

[3]  B Kollmeier,et al.  Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  I. Baljić,et al.  Untersuchungen zur perzeptiven Äquivalenz der Testlisten im Freiburger Einsilbertest , 2016, HNO.

[5]  Geoffrey I. Webb,et al.  Encyclopedia of Machine Learning , 2011, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning.

[6]  Karl-Heinz Hahlbrock,et al.  Über Sprachaudiometrie und neue Wörterteste , 2005, Archiv für Ohren-, Nasen- und Kehlkopfheilkunde.

[7]  Adam P. DeLuca,et al.  AudioGene: Predicting Hearing Loss Genotypes from Phenotypes to Guide Genetic Screening , 2013, Human mutation.

[8]  B. Tideholm,et al.  Inadequate opening capacity of the eustachian tube in Meniere's disease , 2012, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[9]  Shi-Nae Park,et al.  Effect of middle-ear effusion on otoacoustic emissions , 2002, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[10]  José M. F. Moura,et al.  Big Data Analysis with Signal Processing on Graphs: Representation and processing of massive data sets with irregular structure , 2014, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.

[11]  P. Van cauwenberge,et al.  Sensitivity of transient evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions to the direct effects of noise on the human cochlea. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[12]  I. Holube,et al.  [Evaluation of the perceptual equivalence of test lists in the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test]. , 2016, HNO.

[13]  Kayvan Najarian,et al.  Big Data Analytics in Healthcare , 2015, BioMed research international.

[14]  Lirong Dai,et al.  Deep Bottleneck Features for Spoken Language Identification , 2014, PloS one.

[15]  Astakhov,et al.  Biomedical Informatics , 2009, Methods in Molecular Biology™.

[16]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Evaluation of the preliminary auditory profile test battery in an international multi-centre study , 2013, International journal of audiology.

[17]  J Jerger,et al.  Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. , 1970, Archives of otolaryngology.

[18]  Hans Colonius,et al.  Auditory and Non-Auditory Contributions for Unaided Speech Recognition in Noise as a Function of Hearing Aid Use , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[19]  Edward H. Shortliffe,et al.  From certainty factors to belief networks , 1992, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[20]  Volker Hohmann,et al.  Spectral and binaural loudness summation for hearing-impaired listeners , 2016, Hearing Research.

[21]  R. Laszig,et al.  Praxis der Audiometrie , 2009 .

[22]  Vince D. Calhoun,et al.  Human Neuroscience , 2022 .

[23]  Edward H. Shortliffe,et al.  The adolescence of AI in medicine: will the field come of age in the '90s? , 1993, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[24]  Edward H. Shortliffe,et al.  Computer-based medical consultations, MYCIN , 1976 .

[25]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Do you hear the noise? The German matrix sentence test with a fixed noise level in subjects with normal hearing and hearing impairment , 2015, International journal of audiology.

[26]  Volker Hohmann,et al.  An adaptive procedure for categorical loudness scaling. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  E. Shortliffe,et al.  Biomedical informatics : computer applications in health care and biomedicine , 2001 .

[28]  Thomas Brand,et al.  Optimized loudness-function estimation for categorical loudness scaling data , 2014, Hearing Research.

[29]  Anna Warzybok,et al.  The multilingual matrix test: Principles, applications, and comparison across languages: A review , 2015, International journal of audiology.