Pure Tone Average, or PTA, is a single-number representation of hearing sensitivity, derived by averaging the hearing thresholds at specific frequencies. For example, the average of hearing thresholds at 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz would yield the PTA. This calculation provides a general overview of an individual’s hearing ability in the speech frequency range.
Determining this average is valuable for several reasons. It provides a quick and easily understood summary of hearing status, allowing for efficient communication between audiologists and patients or other medical professionals. Historically, it has served as a baseline for assessing the impact of hearing loss on daily communication and for predicting the benefit gained from hearing aids. It allows for quick comparison against speech recognition scores to identify inconsistencies that need to be explored further.
The following sections detail the precise methods for determining this value, including variations based on the frequencies used and considerations for sloping hearing losses and specific clinical applications. These methodologies ensure accurate representation of hearing capability and facilitate effective management of hearing impairments.
1. Thresholds at Key Frequencies
Thresholds at key frequencies are the foundational elements of Pure Tone Average. These thresholds, representing the softest intensity level at which an individual can detect a tone at specific frequencies, directly determine the resulting average. The selection of these frequencies, most commonly 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz, reflects the range most critical for understanding speech. Inaccurate threshold determination at any of these frequencies will inevitably lead to an inaccurate determination of the average, thereby misrepresenting the true extent of hearing sensitivity.
Consider a patient with a threshold of 20 dB HL at 500 Hz, 30 dB HL at 1000 Hz, and 40 dB HL at 2000 Hz. The resulting average would be 30 dB HL. If, however, the threshold at 2000 Hz were incorrectly measured as 50 dB HL, the average would increase to 33.3 dB HL, potentially leading to an overestimation of the patient’s hearing impairment. Furthermore, in certain cases, a four-frequency average (including 4000 Hz) is used or a two-frequency average (using only 500 Hz and 1000 Hz) is employed to yield a more accurate value of the hearing status. The degree of impact depends upon the specific hearing loss configuration and the intended clinical application.
In summary, the accuracy of Pure Tone Average relies entirely on the precise measurement of hearing thresholds at the selected frequencies. Recognizing this dependency is crucial for audiologists to ensure the validity of their assessments, guide appropriate interventions, and accurately track changes in hearing status over time. Failure to prioritize accurate threshold determination undermines the usefulness of Pure Tone Average as a clinical tool.
2. Averaging Procedure
The averaging procedure is the core mathematical process in determining Pure Tone Average. It directly translates individual hearing thresholds into a single, representative value. The validity and clinical significance of this overall figure depend heavily on the correct execution of this procedure.
-
Simple Arithmetic Mean
The most common method involves calculating a simple arithmetic mean of the thresholds at the selected frequencies. The individual thresholds are summed, and the total is divided by the number of frequencies used. For instance, thresholds of 25 dB HL, 30 dB HL, and 35 dB HL at 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz, respectively, yield an average of 30 dB HL. This simple averaging provides a straightforward summary of hearing sensitivity within the specified range.
-
Frequency Weighting (Less Common)
Although less frequent, some averaging procedures assign different weights to individual frequencies based on their relative importance for speech understanding. For example, the threshold at 1000 Hz might be given a higher weight than 500 Hz. While this weighted average can potentially reflect the perceptual impact of hearing loss more accurately, it requires careful consideration of the weighting factors and a clear rationale for their selection.
-
Fletcher Average Considerations
In cases of steeply sloping hearing loss, where thresholds vary significantly across frequencies, the Fletcher average, also known as the two-frequency average, may be considered. This involves averaging only the two best thresholds within the selected frequency range, providing a value that may be more representative of functional hearing ability in such instances. This approach mitigates the influence of a single, severely impaired frequency on the overall average.
-
Impact of Inaccurate Thresholds
The averaging procedure is highly sensitive to inaccuracies in individual threshold measurements. An artificially elevated threshold at a single frequency can disproportionately inflate the overall average, leading to an overestimation of the hearing loss. Conversely, an artificially lowered threshold can mask the severity of the hearing impairment. Thus, meticulous accuracy in threshold determination is paramount for a reliable PTA.
These facets of the averaging procedure directly influence the resulting Pure Tone Average, emphasizing the importance of selecting the appropriate frequencies, applying the correct mathematical approach, and ensuring the accuracy of threshold data. The clinical utility of Pure Tone Average depends on the careful execution of this process and the informed interpretation of the resulting value in the context of the patient’s overall audiological profile.
3. Frequency Selection
Frequency selection represents a critical element in the accurate calculation of Pure Tone Average. The choice of frequencies directly influences the resulting representative value and, consequently, the interpretation of an individual’s hearing status. The standard protocol involves averaging hearing thresholds at 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz, as these frequencies are considered most relevant for understanding everyday speech. The omission or inclusion of specific frequencies, such as 4000 Hz, introduces variability into the calculation, potentially altering the clinical interpretation. For instance, including 4000 Hz in cases where an individual exhibits noise-induced hearing loss, characterized by a notch at that frequency, can lower the average and misrepresent their overall hearing ability in the speech range. The rationale behind frequency selection must align with the specific clinical objective and the individual’s audiological profile.
In instances of steeply sloping hearing losses, where thresholds worsen significantly across frequencies, a modified approach like the Fletcher average may be more appropriate. The Fletcher average typically considers only the two best thresholds, often at 500 Hz and 1000 Hz, thereby minimizing the influence of the poorer thresholds at higher frequencies. This alternative calculation attempts to provide a more realistic representation of the individual’s functional hearing capacity, particularly in situations where high-frequency hearing loss disproportionately affects the standard average. The decision to employ the Fletcher average necessitates careful consideration of the audiogram configuration and the potential for misinterpretation using the traditional three-frequency average.
The selection of frequencies for calculating Pure Tone Average must be guided by a clear understanding of the intended application and the individual’s unique audiological characteristics. While the standard three-frequency average provides a convenient and widely accepted measure, alternative approaches such as the Fletcher average or the inclusion of additional frequencies may be necessary to ensure accurate and clinically meaningful representation of hearing sensitivity. Failure to carefully consider frequency selection can lead to misinterpretations and inappropriate management strategies. Adherence to established guidelines and a thorough evaluation of the individual’s audiogram are essential for maximizing the utility of Pure Tone Average in clinical practice.
4. Hearing Loss Configuration
The configuration of a hearing loss, as depicted on an audiogram, significantly influences the application and interpretation of Pure Tone Average. The Pure Tone Average, intended to provide a summary of hearing sensitivity, may not accurately reflect the functional hearing ability of an individual if the hearing loss is not relatively flat or gradually sloping. For example, a sharply sloping hearing loss, where hearing thresholds decrease significantly from low to high frequencies, can result in a Pure Tone Average that overestimates the overall impairment, especially regarding speech understanding. In such cases, reliance solely on the average may lead to inappropriate amplification settings or an underestimation of the communication challenges experienced by the individual. The configuration of the hearing loss, therefore, necessitates careful consideration in conjunction with Pure Tone Average for a more complete audiological evaluation.
Different configurations of hearing loss require tailored approaches to calculating and interpreting the Pure Tone Average. A flat hearing loss, where thresholds are relatively consistent across frequencies, lends itself well to standard calculation and interpretation. A rising configuration, with better hearing at higher frequencies, is relatively rare but should be recognized. Conversely, a precipitous or “ski-slope” configuration often necessitates the use of a two-frequency average (Fletcher Average) at 500 Hz and 1000 Hz, to more accurately represent hearing ability within the critical speech frequencies. Furthermore, notched audiograms, typical of noise-induced hearing loss, necessitate considering the threshold at 4000 Hz to fully understand the impact of the loss. Failure to account for these varied configurations can lead to an inaccurate representation of hearing impairment and subsequent mismanagement. Real-world examples include cases where a person with a high-frequency hearing loss reports difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments, despite having a seemingly mild Pure Tone Average based on standard frequencies.
In summary, hearing loss configuration is an indispensable consideration in the appropriate calculation and interpretation of Pure Tone Average. The shape of the audiogram dictates the suitability of standard averaging methods and may necessitate alternative calculations or supplementary tests to accurately characterize hearing ability. Recognizing the connection between the hearing loss configuration and the Pure Tone Average ensures a more comprehensive assessment of hearing function, leading to better-informed clinical decisions and improved outcomes for individuals with hearing impairment. Challenges persist in standardizing the application of modified Pure Tone Average calculations across diverse configurations, highlighting the need for continued research and refinement of audiological assessment protocols.
5. Masking Considerations
Accurate determination of Pure Tone Average requires careful consideration of masking, a technique used to isolate the test ear during audiometry. Inadequate or inappropriate masking can lead to inaccurate threshold measurements, directly affecting the reliability and validity of the calculated average. This consideration is especially pertinent when significant interaural asymmetry exists, where one ear demonstrates considerably better hearing thresholds than the other. Failure to mask correctly can result in underestimation of the hearing loss in the poorer ear, leading to a misleading representation of overall hearing sensitivity.
-
Interaural Attenuation
Interaural attenuation refers to the reduction in sound intensity as it travels from one ear to the other. If the intensity of the test tone exceeds the interaural attenuation, the non-test ear may perceive the sound, leading to a false impression of hearing sensitivity in the test ear. For example, if the interaural attenuation is 40 dB and the tone presented to the test ear is 60 dB HL, the non-test ear may perceive the tone at 20 dB HL, even if its actual threshold is higher. This phenomenon necessitates the use of masking to prevent the non-test ear from influencing the test results. In the context of calculating Pure Tone Average, inaccurate thresholds due to inadequate masking can skew the average, leading to an incorrect representation of hearing impairment.
-
Masking Dilemma
The masking dilemma occurs when the amount of masking noise required in the non-test ear to prevent its participation in the test is so high that it begins to cross over and affect the thresholds in the test ear. This situation is particularly challenging when both ears have significant hearing loss. For instance, if both ears require high levels of masking, the noise presented to one ear may become audible in the other, artificially elevating thresholds. Overmasking introduces error into threshold determination and, by extension, affects the precision of the calculated Pure Tone Average. Clinical judgment is required to balance the need for effective masking with the risk of overmasking, ensuring accurate assessment of hearing sensitivity.
-
Effective Masking
Effective masking refers to the minimum level of noise necessary to prevent the non-test ear from responding to the test signal while simultaneously avoiding overmasking. Various masking techniques, such as the plateau method, are employed to determine the effective masking level. The plateau method involves increasing the masking noise in the non-test ear until a plateau is reached, where further increases in masking noise do not affect the threshold in the test ear. This plateau indicates that the true threshold of the test ear has been identified. The appropriate use of effective masking is crucial for obtaining valid hearing thresholds, which directly impact the accuracy and reliability of the Pure Tone Average.
-
Clinical Implications
The clinical implications of inaccurate thresholds due to improper masking extend beyond a simple miscalculation of Pure Tone Average. An incorrect average can lead to inappropriate hearing aid fittings, misdiagnosis of hearing disorders, and ineffective counseling regarding communication strategies. For example, if the hearing loss in one ear is underestimated due to inadequate masking, the hearing aid may not provide sufficient amplification, leading to continued communication difficulties. Accurate masking practices are therefore essential for comprehensive audiological assessment and appropriate management of hearing impairment. Adherence to established masking protocols and careful clinical judgment are necessary to ensure the validity of Pure Tone Average as a diagnostic and rehabilitative tool.
In summary, masking considerations are integral to obtaining accurate hearing thresholds and, consequently, to calculating a meaningful Pure Tone Average. Failure to account for interaural attenuation, navigate the masking dilemma, apply effective masking techniques, or understand the clinical implications of inaccurate thresholds can undermine the entire audiological assessment. Prioritizing proper masking practices ensures the reliability and validity of Pure Tone Average, enabling informed clinical decisions and improved outcomes for individuals with hearing loss.
6. Fletcher Average (if applicable)
The applicability of the Fletcher Average, a modified approach to calculating Pure Tone Average, arises in specific audiological circumstances. Its use deviates from the standard Pure Tone Average calculation, employing only the two best thresholds at speech frequencies, typically 500 Hz and 1000 Hz. This method aims to provide a more representative estimate of hearing ability in cases where a conventional Pure Tone Average may misrepresent auditory function due to certain audiogram configurations.
-
Steeply Sloping Hearing Losses
The Fletcher Average finds its primary application in cases of steeply sloping hearing losses. In such configurations, thresholds worsen significantly across the frequency range, often exhibiting relatively normal hearing at low frequencies with a marked decline at higher frequencies. Utilizing the standard three-frequency average (500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz) can result in an artificially elevated Pure Tone Average that inaccurately reflects the individual’s ability to perceive and understand speech. The Fletcher Average, by emphasizing the lower frequencies, mitigates the impact of the poorer high-frequency thresholds, providing a more clinically relevant estimate of hearing capability. An example is a patient with thresholds of 10 dB HL, 15 dB HL, and 60 dB HL at 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz, respectively. The standard Pure Tone Average is 28.3 dB HL, while the Fletcher Average is 12.5 dB HL. In this scenario, the Fletcher Average more accurately reflects the patient’s better low-frequency hearing.
-
Audiogram Configuration Interpretation
Employing the Fletcher Average necessitates careful audiogram interpretation. It is not a universally applicable substitute for the standard Pure Tone Average; rather, its use must be justified by the specific configuration of the audiogram. The presence of a sharply sloping or precipitous audiogram suggests that the Fletcher Average may provide a more accurate representation of hearing ability. However, in cases of relatively flat or gradually sloping hearing losses, the standard Pure Tone Average remains the preferred metric. Accurate interpretation involves assessing the degree of threshold variation across frequencies and considering the potential for the high-frequency thresholds to unduly influence the standard Pure Tone Average. This consideration is crucial to ensure that the most representative average is used for clinical decision-making.
-
Speech Understanding Prediction
The Fletcher Average can improve predictions of speech understanding, particularly in quiet environments, for individuals with steeply sloping hearing losses. The standard Pure Tone Average may underestimate their speech recognition abilities, leading to inappropriate recommendations or counseling. By focusing on the lower frequencies, which are more critical for perceiving vowel sounds and the fundamental frequencies of speech, the Fletcher Average provides a more accurate assessment of their potential for understanding spoken language. However, its predictive value may decrease in noisy environments where high-frequency consonant sounds are essential for speech discrimination. The use of speech audiometry, in conjunction with the Fletcher Average, is essential to determine the true impact of the hearing loss on communication.
-
Clinical Decision-Making
The decision to employ the Fletcher Average has direct implications for clinical decision-making, including hearing aid fitting and counseling. If the Fletcher Average is deemed more representative of the individual’s hearing ability, amplification settings may be adjusted to prioritize low-frequency sounds. The audiologist should counsel the patient on the limitations of the average, emphasizing the importance of high-frequency amplification for consonant sounds and speech understanding in noise. Furthermore, the selection of hearing aid features, such as directional microphones or noise reduction algorithms, may be tailored to address the specific challenges associated with the individual’s hearing loss configuration. The integration of the Fletcher Average into the clinical decision-making process requires careful consideration of the audiogram, speech audiometry results, and the individual’s communication needs.
The relevance of the Fletcher Average within Pure Tone Average calculation resides in its potential to refine audiological assessment under specific circumstances. Its appropriate application hinges on careful audiogram interpretation, accurate prediction of speech understanding, and informed clinical decision-making. While it is not a universal replacement for the standard average, the Fletcher Average serves as a valuable tool in ensuring that the calculated average accurately represents an individual’s functional hearing ability, thereby contributing to improved outcomes for individuals with hearing loss.
7. Speech Frequencies
The relationship between speech frequencies and Pure Tone Average (PTA) is fundamental to audiological assessment. Speech frequencies, generally considered to span the range from 250 Hz to 8000 Hz, are crucial for the perception and understanding of spoken language. The PTA, calculated using thresholds typically at 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz, aims to estimate hearing sensitivity within this vital frequency range. A direct correlation exists; changes in hearing thresholds at these specific speech frequencies directly affect the PTA value. Impairment within this range, as reflected in elevated thresholds, directly impacts the resultant PTA, thus influencing interpretations regarding communication abilities.
The practical significance lies in using PTA as an initial indicator of an individuals ability to perceive speech. For instance, a PTA within the normal range (0-25 dB HL) suggests minimal impact on speech perception in quiet environments. Conversely, an elevated PTA indicates potential difficulty understanding speech. For example, if an individual exhibits thresholds of 40 dB HL at 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz, the resulting PTA of 40 dB HL implies a moderate hearing loss that is likely to affect the understanding of conversational speech. Clinically, this informs decisions regarding further diagnostic testing, such as speech audiometry, and the potential need for hearing amplification or other rehabilitative strategies.
In summary, the interconnectedness of speech frequencies and PTA is paramount in audiology. Accurately assessing thresholds at key speech frequencies directly influences the PTA value, which subsequently guides clinical management. Challenges remain in precisely predicting speech understanding based solely on PTA, as factors such as the configuration of hearing loss and the presence of background noise also play significant roles. Speech audiometry is an important supplement that measures speech recognition ability more directly. Nevertheless, the PTA provides a valuable starting point for evaluating the impact of hearing sensitivity on communication.
8. Clinical Interpretation
The clinical interpretation of a Pure Tone Average (PTA) is a critical step in audiological assessment, transforming a numerical value into meaningful insights about a patient’s hearing status and its potential impact on communication. The accuracy and relevance of this interpretation are directly dependent on the correct calculation of the PTA.
-
Hearing Loss Severity
The PTA serves as a primary indicator of hearing loss severity, categorized into degrees ranging from normal hearing to profound hearing loss. For instance, a PTA of 35 dB HL typically corresponds to a moderate hearing loss, suggesting difficulty hearing faint or distant speech. This interpretation informs decisions regarding the need for intervention, such as hearing aids or assistive listening devices. The accuracy of this interpretation hinges on a valid PTA calculation; an inflated PTA, due to measurement errors or incorrect masking, can lead to an overestimation of the hearing loss and potentially unnecessary interventions.
-
Communication Impact
Clinical interpretation also involves assessing the potential impact of the PTA on an individual’s communication abilities. A PTA within the normal range generally indicates minimal effect on everyday communication. However, even a mild hearing loss, as reflected in a slightly elevated PTA, can result in difficulties understanding speech in noisy environments. The audiologist must consider the patient’s lifestyle, communication needs, and the configuration of the hearing loss when evaluating the communication impact. An inaccurate PTA may lead to an underestimation of the communication challenges faced by the individual, delaying appropriate management strategies.
-
Cross-Validation with Other Tests
The PTA should be cross-validated with other audiological test results, such as speech audiometry, tympanometry, and acoustic reflex testing. Inconsistencies between the PTA and other test findings may indicate measurement errors, non-organic hearing loss, or the presence of underlying pathology. For example, a significantly poorer speech recognition score than predicted by the PTA may suggest retrocochlear involvement or central auditory processing disorder. The interpretation of the PTA should therefore be viewed within the broader context of the patient’s audiological profile. Reliance solely on the PTA without considering other test results can lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate management.
-
Counseling and Rehabilitation
Clinical interpretation guides counseling and rehabilitation recommendations. Based on the PTA and other audiological findings, the audiologist provides information to the patient regarding the nature and extent of their hearing loss, the potential benefits of amplification, and strategies for improving communication. The accuracy of the PTA directly influences the appropriateness and effectiveness of these recommendations. For instance, an inaccurate PTA may lead to the selection of unsuitable hearing aid technology or ineffective communication strategies. Counseling should also address the limitations of PTA, emphasizing that it is just one component of the audiological evaluation.
In conclusion, the clinical interpretation of a PTA is not merely an assignment of hearing loss severity; it is a comprehensive assessment of the patient’s hearing status, communication challenges, and rehabilitation needs. This interpretation relies heavily on the valid calculation of the PTA, the integration of other audiological test results, and the audiologist’s clinical expertise. Accurate interpretation ensures appropriate management strategies and improved outcomes for individuals with hearing loss.
Frequently Asked Questions
This section addresses common inquiries regarding the computation of Pure Tone Average (PTA), a crucial metric in audiological assessment.
Question 1: Why are specific frequencies (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz) typically used in calculating Pure Tone Average?
These frequencies represent the core range for understanding conversational speech. Averaging thresholds at these frequencies provides a general indicator of hearing sensitivity relevant to everyday communication. While other frequencies may contribute to overall hearing ability, these three are considered most critical for speech perception.
Question 2: What is the clinical significance of Pure Tone Average in audiological evaluations?
It serves as a summary measure of hearing sensitivity, facilitating communication between audiologists, patients, and other healthcare professionals. Pure Tone Average aids in categorizing the degree of hearing loss and predicting potential communication difficulties. It informs decisions regarding further diagnostic testing, hearing aid candidacy, and counseling strategies.
Question 3: When is the Fletcher Average (two-frequency average) preferred over the standard three-frequency Pure Tone Average?
The Fletcher Average is considered when the audiogram exhibits a steeply sloping configuration. In such cases, the standard three-frequency average may overestimate the impact of the hearing loss, as it incorporates the poorer thresholds at higher frequencies. The Fletcher Average, using only the two best thresholds, provides a more representative estimate of functional hearing ability.
Question 4: How does inaccurate masking affect the validity of the Pure Tone Average?
Inadequate masking can lead to artificially improved thresholds in the test ear, as the non-test ear may contribute to the response. This results in an inaccurate Pure Tone Average that underestimates the degree of hearing loss. Conversely, overmasking can artificially worsen thresholds, leading to an overestimation of the hearing loss. Proper masking techniques are essential for accurate threshold determination and a valid Pure Tone Average.
Question 5: Can Pure Tone Average alone be used to determine the need for hearing aids?
It provides valuable information regarding hearing sensitivity, it should not be the sole determinant of hearing aid candidacy. Other factors, such as speech recognition scores, communication needs, lifestyle, and patient motivation, must be considered. Comprehensive audiological evaluation and clinical judgment are required to determine the appropriateness of hearing amplification.
Question 6: How are bone conduction thresholds incorporated into the calculation of Pure Tone Average?
Bone conduction thresholds are not directly incorporated into the standard calculation. The standard calculation utilizes air conduction thresholds at the specified frequencies. Bone conduction thresholds are compared with air conduction thresholds to determine the type of hearing loss (conductive, sensorineural, or mixed).
The calculation of Pure Tone Average is a fundamental aspect of audiological assessment. The provided information offers clarification regarding its application, interpretation, and limitations.
The subsequent section will provide a summary of key considerations.
Key Considerations for Precise Pure Tone Average Determination
Accurate computation of Pure Tone Average is essential for reliable audiological assessment. This section outlines pivotal considerations to ensure precise and clinically meaningful results.
Tip 1: Verify Accurate Threshold Determination: Obtain accurate air conduction thresholds at 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz. Re-test any uncertain thresholds to ensure reliability, as errors at these frequencies will directly affect the final average.
Tip 2: Employ Appropriate Masking Protocols: Utilize proper masking techniques, particularly when asymmetry exists between ears. Failure to mask adequately can lead to inaccurate thresholds and an unreliable average.
Tip 3: Consider Audiogram Configuration: Evaluate the shape of the audiogram. In cases of steeply sloping hearing loss, contemplate using the Fletcher Average (two-frequency average) rather than the standard three-frequency calculation.
Tip 4: Document Calculation Method: Clearly document the method used to calculate the Pure Tone Average (standard or Fletcher) and the frequencies included. This enhances clarity and facilitates comparison across audiograms.
Tip 5: Cross-Validate with Speech Audiometry: Compare the calculated Pure Tone Average with speech recognition scores. Significant discrepancies warrant further investigation, as they may indicate non-organic hearing loss or other underlying issues.
Tip 6: Calibrate Equipment Regularly: Ensure audiometric equipment is calibrated according to ANSI standards. This minimizes measurement errors and enhances the accuracy of threshold determination.
Adherence to these guidelines promotes reliable Pure Tone Average calculation, leading to more accurate assessment and appropriate management of hearing impairments.
The subsequent section provides a concise conclusion to this comprehensive overview.
Conclusion
This article has provided a detailed examination of how to calculate Pure Tone Average. Emphasis has been placed on the accuracy of threshold determination, appropriate masking techniques, consideration of audiogram configuration, and clinical interpretation. The significance of these aspects in achieving a valid and clinically relevant average has been thoroughly explored.
The ability to accurately determine Pure Tone Average remains a cornerstone of audiological practice. Diligent adherence to established procedures and a comprehensive understanding of its limitations are crucial for effective patient management. Continued refinement of assessment techniques and ongoing professional education are essential for optimizing the clinical utility of this fundamental measure of hearing sensitivity.
