{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03134556574923547, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012996941896024464, 'mean_word_length': 4.9771689497716896, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
User-operated audiometry - an evaluation of expert vs. non-expert headphone placement.

OBJECTIVE
User-operated audiometry faces multiple barriers. One of these is the concern of audiologists that patients (non-experts) placing headphones by themselves results in invalid hearing thresholds due to greater placement variability.


DESIGN
Comparative study. Participants took the AMTAS pure-tone air-conduction audiometry under two different conditions, expert and non-expert circumaural headphone placement for five frequencies within the range 250-8000 Hz. Questionnaires were also used to gain insight into the usability of the user-operated audiometry system - as well as the participants' perceived handling of the audiometry headphones.


STUDY SAMPLE
Thirty participants (mean age 67.5 years).


RESULTS
No statistically significant mean differences in hearing thresholds between the expert and non-expert conditions were found. The mean system usability scale score was 84.5. Handling the headphones was also rated as being easy (30%) or very easy (60%) by most non-experts.


CONCLUSION
The conclusion of the study is that non-experts can be trusted to properly equip a pair of circumaural audiometry headphones for the correct conduction of pure-tone audiometry with only a few digital instructions.