{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038129496402877695, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014388489208633094, 'mean_word_length': 4.820083682008368, '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}}
Repeatability, agreement, and feasibility of using the threshold equalizing noise test and fast psychophysical tuning curves in a clinical setting

Abstract Objective: To investigate repeatability, agreement, and clinical feasibility of the threshold equalizing noise (TEN) test and fast psychophysical tuning curve (PTC) measurements to detect off-frequency listening, an indicator of cochlear dead regions (DRs). Design: The TEN-test was carried out from 0.5 to 4 kHz and fast PTCs were carried out at ≥ 2 frequencies. Study sample: The TEN-test was completed on 70 ears; fast PTCs were measured on 20 ears. Results: TEN-test findings were repeatable in terms of meeting the criteria for a DR (97%) and identifying the same edge frequency (fe) (87%). In all cases, fast PTCs were repeatable in terms of meeting the criteria for DRs. There was 87% agreement between the two procedures in terms of the presence of off-frequency listening, and there was 73% agreement in terms of fe. Fast PTCs had a 10% lower ‘conclusive finding’ rate than the TEN-test and the test duration was typically 40 minutes longer. Conclusions: Both the TEN-test and fast PTCs have high test-retest repeatability. The TEN-test is more clinically feasible due to its shorter test duration and higher interpretation rate, but it may underestimate the extent of a DR because of its inability to precisely identify fe.