4.5 Article

Performance of an Automated Detection Algorithm to Assess Objective Pulsatile Tinnitus

Journal

EAR AND HEARING
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 655-660

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001301

Keywords

Auscultation; Detection algorithm; Interobserver reliability; Pulsatile tinnitus; Objective tinnitus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, an automated detection algorithm for pulsatile tinnitus (PT) is described, and its performance is investigated. Sound measurements were taken with a microphone placed in the outer ear canal of 36 PT patients, along with registration of heart rate. A novel algorithm calculated the coherence between the recorded sound and heart rate as a pulsatility index, and its performance was compared with the judgement of 3 blinded observers.
Objectives: In this paper we describe an automated detection algorithm that objectively detects pulsatile tinnitus (PT) and investigate its performance.Design: Sound measurements were made with a sensitive microphone placed in the outer ear canal in 36 PT-patients referred to our tertiary clinic, along with a registration of the heart rate. A novel algorithm expressed the coherence between the recorded sound and heart rate as a pulsatility index. This index was determined for 6 octave bands of the recorded sound. We assessed the performance of the detection algorithm by comparing it with the judgement of 3 blinded observers.Results: The algorithm showed good agreement compared with the majority judgement of the blinded observers (ROC AUC 0.83). Interobserver reliability for detecting PT in sound recordings by the three blinded observers was substantial (Fleiss's ?=0.64).Conclusions: The algorithm may be a reliable alternative to subjective assessments of in-canal sound measurements in PT-patients, thus providing clinicians with an objective measure to differentiate between subjective and objective pulsatile tinnitus.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available