1. Audiometric Characteristics of Children and Adults
Andrea Pittman, Ph.D.
Patricia Stelmachowicz, Ph.D.
Boys Town National Research Hospital
Funded by a grant from NIH

2. Possible Adult-Child Differences
Audiometric Configurations
Right-Left Ear Asymmetry of Hearing Loss
Progression of Hearing Loss
There are many aspects of hearing loss that must be considered before selecting a hearing instrument for a patient. The three most basic considerations are:
1 – the configuration and degree of hearing loss
2 – the symmetry of loss between ears
3 – the possible progression of loss
Given that hearing loss in children and adults often arises from different etiologies, these aspects may differ for these two population. To date there are
no studies that compare these characteristics in children and adults…

3. Methods Groups Criteria 248 audiograms from 60- and 61-year-old adults
227 audiograms from 6-year-old children
Criteria
Right ear thresholds at octave test frequencies kHz
At least one threshold > 30 dB
Confirmed right ear sensorinueral hearing loss by bone conduction audiometry
Air-bone gaps < 10 dB.

4. Audiogram Classification
Sloping
Rising
Flat
U-Shaped
Noise Notched
Tent-Shaped
Other
Audiograms were grouped by configuration into 6 categories.

5. Audiogram Classification
Sloping
Rising
Flat
U-Shaped
Noise Notched
Tent-Shaped
Other
Sloping – thresholds increased with increasing frequency

6. Audiogram Classification
Sloping
Rising
Flat
U-Shaped
Noise Notched
Tent-Shaped
Other
Rising – threshold decreased with increasing frequency

7. Audiogram Classification
Sloping
Rising
Flat
U-Shaped
Noise Notched
Tent-Shaped
Other
Flat – threshold varied no more than 15 dB across all frequencies (may be 20, I have to check)

8. Audiogram Classification
Sloping
Rising
Flat
U-Shaped
Noise Notched
Tent-Shaped
Other
U-shaped, one or more thresholds was poorer than thresholds at 250 and 8k by at least 10 dB

9. Audiogram Classification
Sloping
Rising
Flat
U-Shaped
Noise Notched
Tent-Shaped
Other
Using this definition, noise-notched losses were included in this category.

10. Audiogram Classification
Sloping
Rising
Flat
U-Shaped
Noise Notched
Tent-Shaped
Other
Tent Shaped – One or more thresholds was better than 250 and 8k

11. Audiogram Classification
Sloping
Rising
Flat
U-Shaped
Noise Notched
Tent-Shaped
Other
Other – anything that didn’t fit neatly into the other 5 categories

12. Results: Configurations
Results – 50% of the adult losses and just over 30% of the children’s losses were sloping configurations.
There were no rising adult audiograms
The children displayed more flat and other losses.
Both groups contained similar percentages of U- and tent-shaped losses

13. Results: Average Audiograms
Adults
Children
The average configuration of all losses for each group (SDs to be added when I figure out how to do it.)

14. Results: Sloping Adults Children
Average configuration of sloping losses

15. Results: Sloping Adults Children
The sloping losses were subcategorized in two way. The light blue lines represent losses where the threshold at
250 Hz was <25 dB and

16. Results: Sloping
Adults
Children

17. Results: Flat
Adults
Children

18. Results: U-Shaped
Adults
Children

19. Results: U-Shaped
Adults
Children

20. Results: Tent-Shaped
Adults
Children

21. Results: Tent-Shaped
Adults
Children

22. Results: Other
Adults
Children

23. Results: Other
Adults
Children

24. Results: Other
Adults
Children

25. Results: Other
Adults
Children

26. Results: Other
Adults
Children

27. Asymmetry Left Ear Thresholds 248 60- and 61-year-old adults
227 6-year-old children

28. Results: Asymmetry

29. Results: Asymmetry @ 250 Hz
Adults
Children

30. Results: Asymmetry @ 500 Hz
Adults
Children

31. Results: Asymmetry @ 1k Hz
Adults
Children

32. Results: Asymmetry @ 2k Hz
Adults
Children

33. Results: Asymmetry @ 4k Hz
Adults
Children

34. Results: Asymmetry @ 8k Hz
Adults
Children