Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

How accurate do we think The Apple hearing test is as opposed to one performed by an audiologist/

This topic is closed.

23 replies4.6k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic

So I’m not sure if someone has asked this and I’ve missed it, but I’m curious to know from audiologists, how trustworthy/accurate is the Apple hearing test performed with airpods pro 2, compared to say a regular hearing test that an audi would carry out?
My reason for asking, is that my hearing often fluctuates wit cochlear hydrops, sometimes for weeks at a time. Going in to have the devices reprogrammed is a bit of a pain for me given I have no eyesight and sometimes, a simple volume tweak won’t quite do it as it will end up boosting frequencies I don’t want.
What I’d like to be able to do, is take a hearing test with the pods, email the to my audi and then have him remote in and tweak the frequencies. He has done this with Phonak in the past and if I go with Allure’s I’m told remote care will be available in the future.
It’s not the ideal solution I know, but it’s probably still better than me trekking across London.

For what it’s worth, I@ve shown a couple of audiograms to my audi from the Airpods and I think he was quite surprised at how similar they were compared to the one he took, although he said the Apple tested more frequencies.

8 people in this conversation12 min readJump to latest

Around the threshold of what you can hear at each frequency tested there are always errors sized at the steps in decibels that are being varied. “Did I just hear that tone or am I hallucinating a bit?” You are also more or less alert, and expecting tones. Those error sources are probably a bit larger than variations between audio sources (say Airpods vs headphones vs cabins).
You could increase accuracy by using smaller decibel steps, more frequencies, randomly alternating ears, continuing the beeps for a long time if they are initially missed (all making the test last very long) and repeating the tests. But there is really no point in trying to achieve this. Having a good enough to adjust is sufficient, as these audiograms are only just the basis for the fitting process, which also tries to take into account how your particular brain processes sound. The whole thing is radically different from getting corrective glasses…

Phonak has a remote in-situ fitting feature called Direct that would be preferable to the Apple test.

Edited

In my case, as long as the loss is lower than 60, the result is similar. It seems 60 is the limit it will record (so if your threshold is 75 @6K hz, it will display 60). At least that is what happened to me (My loss @ 8K hz is >= 65)
The guy at Costco says there is not much (conversation wise) @ 8K. I like having the 8K tuned well because electronic music sounds awesome when I can hear that frequency (and higher).

Here is my Apple Hearing Test

image

Here is a Costco Hearing Test taken two weeks later

image

Somewhat similar but also different - my guess is the Costco one should be more accurate (taken in dedicated sound booth by a professional).

That said I have both programmed into my Eargo 7’s and they are pretty close in the real world (I maybe prefer the Costco setting but its not a strong preference).

Uisng the Airpod Pro 2’s as hearing aids (streaming, phone calls and occasionally just as hearing aids) and then the Apple Audiogram is clearly best,

Just using this example:

1 There’s low frequency differences: probably due to canal volume issues/leakage.
2 The mid-range plateau noted in the Costco test isn’t visible on your Itest.
3 There’s no bone conduction values at all on the Itest, so if you’d had a conductive loss it wouldn’t have been evidenced and no onward referral to your doctor/ent to see resolution for a reversible condition.
4 The overall levels are lower meaning that you’d likely be under aided, while your prescription would possibly be more comfortable, comfort doesn’t equate with better in terms of speech perception or long term cognition.

I’m not saying that this testing doesn’t have a role in identifying/confirming initial thoughts of a hearing loss, just as a clinical tool (to base your fitting on), it lacks veracity and merit. Tbh if you didn’t already know you had a hearing loss with that test, I suspect you’ve been living in the woods for a while. So, if the Itest is the tool that pushes you to get a proper evaluation done: then great.

Your answer confirms what I thought actually Which is to say yes there is some value in this test, but I know, having got my audio to re-fit my existing proscription after taking the airpods test, the re-fit isn’t right. It’s not exactly wrong, but it’s definitely not as comfortable as if they’d done another hearing test at the clinnic and then refit.

In reply to @Um_bongo

@Um_bongo said:

Tbh if you didn’t already know you had a hearing loss with that test, I suspect you’ve been living in the woods for a while.

Wow! We are all hopefully posting here to share and help others.

We don’t need some judgmental grumpy audiologist shaming people.

Yup I knew my hearing was going and started getting tests - hopefully that is a good thing!

Eargo 7’s for daily use have been great helping in conversations in quiet and noisy settings. The Airpod Pro 2’s are great for streaming and voice calls.

This week I will also get either Costco Hearlink 9050s or Jabra Enhance Pro 20’s - not sure if they will be better than than the Eargo 7’s with the Costco - but I have $ to use before I retire (it’s a US thing)

I apologise if my directness offends you, but this industry suffers from a huge level of denial on the part of the clients. Also the ‘tone’ of comments sometimes gets lost over typed responses and 10 time-zones.

Good that you’ve sought professional assistance - the bulk of my post was on there to illustrate that whilst these intermediate level tests function as signposting, they fall far short of clinical testing - the risk being that some reversible and some highly non-reversible conditions don’t get acted on in time or at all. Plus there’s a lot of ‘Big Pharma rip-off’ sentiment about which percolates into stories on here too.

I’m happy that you’re currently seeking a professional solution.

Hearing Test Results
Here are my results. If you compare them to my , you will see the 60db limit in the Apple hearing test but, in general, the results are very similar. This actually makes sense because Apple claims its feature only covers mild/moderate hearing loss (Hearing loss chart define the moderate loss at 60dB.). Interestingly, Apple claims I have little no to loss but that’s because the WHO defines the level of hearing loss as the average of 500hz, 1000hz, 2000hz and 4000hz.

Now, there is a BIG difference in sound (music) if I use the audiogram vs. the Apple hearing test. The highs are clearer.

Edited

So I did several tests today with the AirPods Pro and its hearing features.

I used the data from Apple’s hearing test up to 4K and then used the data from my Audiologist from 4K to 8k due to the 60 db limit that I saw in Apple’s generated audiogram.

After that, I ran multiple tests using Mimi.

I was VERY surprised to see that the Airpods PRO were powerful enough to bring my hearing levels to the same level that I get with both my Phonak and my Rexton hearing aids. It seems that the airpods are powerful enough to bring my 70/75 db thresholds @8K to 20db. My 70/75db hearing loss @ 8K is considered severe hearing loss at that frequency.

This is interesting, I was not expecting this result. I ran the Mimi test 10 times. Please note that this is with Mimi, which streams directly from the iPhone to the Airpods and not a test of how the Airpods actually perform with outside sounds. I’ll test this with my Sony’s XM4 later this week and see if I get similar results.

No wonder music sounded different when using the Apple hearing test vs the audiologist audiogram.

I’m an engineer and I love doing experiments like these.

I’m not making claims, I’m sharing the results of the experiment and what I saw. Your results may vary as this is definitely not a controlled experiment.

Comparing the audiogram in my profile to the picture attached to see the gains.

One note: I paid $129 for my Airpods PRO 2 @ BestBuy (Open Box) and I was able to get AppleCare for it, it was definitely a good deal.

So going back to the original subject: Yes, the Apple audiogram is very good up to 55

IMG_0055

In reply to @Um_bongo

@Um_bongo said:

I apologise if my directness offends you, but this industry suffers from a huge level of denial on the part of the clients.

It wasn’t directness. It was unnecessary and unhelpful in a thread talking about the accuracy of the Apple Hearing Test compared to one done by an audiologist. Worse it was counter productive if you are trying to encourage people to get help with their hearing.

Obviously I knew I had hearing loss! Why else do you think I had a test at Costco and have been using Eargo 7 and Airpod Pro 2’s (both approved aids). Both let me switch between the from Apple and my Costco audiogram so I can select which one works best.

The Eargo 7’s are working well for daily life and Airpod Pro 2’s are great for streaming, hands-free calls and travel (noise reduction in planes etc).

I will get fitted with Jabra Pro 30’s (similar to Resound Vivias) on Friday to see if they are any better.

Some of the later posts in this thread suggests the Apple Test does a pretty good job and if gets people started finding out more about their hearing loss and looking at options is that not great? The FDA created the category of OTC aids because there are an estimated 30 million people in the US with hearing loss but only one fifth of these people are seeking help with their hearing.

@coastal_california said:

It wasn’t directness. It was unnecessary and unhelpful in a thread talking about the accuracy of the Apple Hearing Test compared to one done by an audiologist. Worse it was counter productive if you are trying to encourage people to get help with their hearing.

Ok, I apologised. Take it or leave it.

I’m not trying to encourage people to do anything, I’m making a statement about the veracity of an open ended uncalibrated test being used as a basis for a prescription. It’s part of a race towards a cheap and dirty solution; that doesn’t sit well with my training and ability to provide a better answer.

[quote=“Um_bongo, post:15, topic:102220”]
Every approved test/HAs sold in the US has to meet the HA OTC mandatory regulations. The FDA also determined that those regulations are enough for mild/moderate hearing loss. It’s not my opinion, its a fact.

So calling them cheap and dirty shows you were not aware of this: The FDA regulates ALL medical equipment sold in the United States, including lasers, respirators, radiology, etc. The FDA approved Apple’s Airpods as a software medical device (including its hearing test) on Sept 2024.
So for mild/moderate hearing loss, its accurate enough for its purposes.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-first-over-counter-hearing-aid-software4

OTC Hearing Aids: What You Should Know3

What are over-the-counter hearing aids, who can buy, where to buy, how they work, labeling, and returns.

Um Bongo is merely stating a fact, when it comes to denial. I see it…well, hear it…all the time. People don’t want to acknowledge hearing loss. I think it’s good to have that stated out loud. The shame factor has to do with perceived social shaming over people wearing hearing aids, not in mentioning this last in a thread like this. Anyway…let me quote you:

@coastal_california said:

We don’t need some judgmental grumpy audiologist shaming people.

ummm…that’s a pretty good impression of an attempt to shame someone on line!

Edited
@jeffrey said:

Um Bongo is merely stating a fact, when it comes to denial. I see it…well, hear it…all the time. People don’t want to acknowledge hearing loss.

Where was the denial in this thread that needed calling out (or required comments like “I suspect you’ve been living in the woods for a while.”)?

I was just sharing the from my Costco and Apple Hearing tests to try to shed some light of the question posed in this thread?

This is why I was very careful when I said “ for its purposes”. They set a goal and it was met . Does that mean is the most optimal solution ? Of course not , but the line has to be drawn at some point . You can get the AirPods on sale for $160 or you can pay $7000 for a sphere . At least people have an affordable choice now

Edited

In reply to @OcramSagev

@OcramSagev said:

So calling them cheap and dirty shows you were not aware of this: The FDA regulates ALL medical equipment sold in the United States,

I’m well aware thanks, just because one government chose to deregulate a part of the process doesn’t invalidate my argument.

Here’s a scenario I’ve seen this week. Someone came in to me with a mild/mod loss fairly long term, slight asymmetry little bit of tinnitus. Under the system in the US, they could now fit themselves with AirPods or whatever, go away for a few years and be happy? Yes? They’d already seen the GP who’d suggested that there wasn’t anything else in play other than some ‘light yellow wax’.

I looked in the ears on Tuesday, noticed a malformation on the pars flaccida (retraction pocket) on the one Tymp and after a bit of detritus removal, a fully formed attic cholesteatoma on the other side. Obviously we bounced them back as an urgent referral to . That (Cholesteatoma) doesn’t happen every day but during my regular work, we’ll get 3+ cases a week where onward referral is a definite outcome.

I have no issue with someone using a ‘cheap and dirty’ solution if they’re able to make an informed decision about it: don’t get me wrong, I use some quite basic noise cancelling earphones when flying etc. The point is, (as has been illustrated many times on these pages) that while your average client is sufficiently informed to actively manage their own initial testing, prescription and maintenance to a certain level; it falls far short medical standard of a calibrated system or an appropriate medical standard for a developed country. That’s before you start to look at the consequences of not intervening with certain conditions or prescription level creep/loudness junkie scenarios.

Your hearing, your health, (your acoustic neuroma), your choice.

Related discussions