↓ Skip to main content

Assessing Auditory Processing Deficits in Tinnitus and Hearing Impaired Patients with the Auditory Behavior Questionnaire

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing Auditory Processing Deficits in Tinnitus and Hearing Impaired Patients with the Auditory Behavior Questionnaire
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00187
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabel Diges, Francisco Simón, Pedro Cobo

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Auditory processing disorders (APD), tinnitus and hearing loss (HL) are typical issues reported by patients in audiologic clinics. These auditory impairments can be concomitant or mutually excluding. APD are not necessarily accompanied by significant HL, whereas many adults exhibit peripheral HL and typical cognitive deficits often associated with APD. Since HL, tinnitus and APD affects to several parts of the ascending auditory pathway from the periphery to the auditory cortex, there could be some interrelationship between them. For instance, tinnitus has been reported to degrade the auditory localization capacity. Tinnitus is believed to be triggered by deafferentation of normal peripheral input to the central auditory system. This peripheral deficit can be accompanied by HL or not, since a type of permanent cochlear damage (thus deafferentation) without an elevation of hearing thresholds might persist. Therefore, a combined study of APD, tinnitus and HL on the same cohort of patients can be audiologically relevant and worthy. Methods: Statistical analysis is applied to a cohort of 305 patients attending an audiology clinic in Madrid (Spain). This group of patients is first categorized in four subgroups, namely, HLTG (with tinnitus and HL), NHLTG (with tinnitus and without HL), HLNTG (with HL but no tinnitus), and NHLNTG (neither tinnitus nor HL). The statistical variables include Age, Average Auditory Threshold (ATT), for assessing HL, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), for measuring tinnitus, and a new 25-item Auditory Behavior Questionnaire (ABQ), for scoring APD. Factor analysis is applied to arrange these items into 4 subscales. The internal consistency reliability of this ABQ is confirmed by calculating Cronbach's coefficients α. The test-retest reliability is assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficients, ICC. Statistical techniques applied to the data set include descriptive analysis of variables and Spearman rank correlations (ρ) between them. Results: Overall reliability of ABQ is confirmed by an α value of 0.89 and by an ICC of 0.91. Regarding the internal consistency reliability, the four subscales prove a fairly good consistency with α coefficients above 0.7. Average values of statistical variables show significantly lower age of patients with tinnitus and no HL, which can provide a cue of noise overexposure of this segment of population. These younger patients show also decreased ABQ and similar THI in comparison with patients in the other subgroups. A strong correlation (ρ = 0.63) was found between AAT and Age for the HLNTG subgroup. For the HLTG subgroup, a moderate correlation (ρ = 0.44) was found between ABQ and THI. Conclusion: The utilized questionnaire (ABQ), together with AAT and THI, can help to study comorbid hearing impairments in patients regularly attending an audiological clinic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 15 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Linguistics 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 17 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2022.
All research outputs
#7,208,166
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,675
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,149
of 324,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#79
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.