REVIEW PAPER
MASKING TECHNIQUES REVISITED: APPLICATION OF LIDÉN’S FORMULAS IN BONE CONDUCTION SPEECH AUDIOMETRY
,
 
Sabrina Alonso 1, A,C-D,F
,
 
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Audiology, Mutualidad Argentina de Hipoacusicos (M.A.H.), Argentina
 
 
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
 
 
Submission date: 2025-08-21
 
 
Final revision date: 2025-12-25
 
 
Acceptance date: 2026-01-12
 
 
Online publication date: 2026-02-02
 
 
Publication date: 2026-02-02
 
 
Corresponding author
Horacio Cristiani   

Audiology, Mutualidad Argentina de Hipoacusicos, Peron 1654, C1037ACF, Buenos Aires, Argentina
 
 
J Hear Sci 2025;15(4):9-15
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Bone conduction speech audiometry is a complementary tool required by many otologists, particularly in assessing cochlear reserve and estimating postoperative results in patients undergoing stapedectomy. However, when clinical masking of the non-test ear is needed for these tests, it introduces a significant methodological challenge. This study aims to establish a systematic approach for determining safe and effective masking levels in bone conduction speech audiometry. In this context, the proposed framework offers quantitative tools designed to help reduce the risk of masking dilemmas, which are a persistent challenge in audiologic practice.

Material and methods:
Adaptation and application of Lidén’s formulas to determine the minimum and maximum masking levels for bone conduction speech audiometry and analysis of four frequently encountered audiometric configurations.

Results:
The minimum and maximum masking levels for each configuration were determined. In cases of large ear-bone gaps in the non-test ear, and/or good bone conduction thresholds in the test ear, masking at supra-threshold levels may be difficult due to the risk of overmasking. In one or more of these configurations, a masking dilemma is sometimes detected at levels close to the speech recognition threshold. In such challenging situations, we recommend the use of insert earphones to extend the range of safe stimulus levels and masking levels that can be presented to the patient.

Conclusions:
Speech audiometry holds considerable predictive value for otologic surgeons, so it is important to use techniques that minimise the risks of cross-hearing and inappropriate masking. These limitations are important when using bone-conduction stimulation and need to be carefully evaluated. This paper shows how Lidén’s formulas can be used for calculating safe masking levels.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to Dr. Daniel Orfila for his continuous support and valuable contributions.
FUNDING
This research and article did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
REFERENCES (17)
1.
Kruger B, Mazor RM. Speech Audiometry in the USA. In: Martin M, Speech Audiometry. London: Taylor & Francis; 1987, pp. 207–35.
 
2.
Goetzinger CP, Proud GO. Speech audiometry by bone conduction. AMA Arch Otolaryngol, 1955; 62(6): 632–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/archot....
 
3.
Merrell HB, Wolfe DL, McLemore DC. Air and bone conducted speech reception thresholds. Laryngoscope, 1973; 83(12): 1929–39. https://doi.org/10.1288/000055....
 
4.
Hahlbrock K-H. Knochenleitungs-Sprachaudiometrie Als Zusätzliche Messmethode Vor Hörverbessernden Operatioxen. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 1961; 53: 2–3, 365–73. https://doi.org/10.3109/000164....
 
5.
Tato IM, Alfaro A. Audiometria del lenguaje. Revista Otolaring, 1949; 1(3) [in Spanish].
 
6.
Robinson M, Kasden SD. Bone conduction speech audiometry. A calibrated method to predict post-stapedectomy discrimination scores. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 1970; 79(4): 818–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348....
 
7.
Robinson M, Kasden SD. Bone conduction speech discrimination: an indication of cochlear function in the immediate postoperative period. Arch Otolaryngol, 1977; 103(4): 238–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/archot....
 
8.
Barry J, Gaddis S. Physical and physiological constraints on the use of speech audiometry, J Speech Hear Dis, 1978; XLII: 220–6. https://doi.org/10.1044/JSHD.4....
 
9.
Yacullo WS. Clinical masking. In: Katz J, Handbook of Clinical Audiology, 7th Edition. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health; 2015, pp. 77–110.
 
10.
Turner RG. Masking redux. II: A recommended masking protocol. J Am Acad Audiol, 2004; 15(1): 29–46. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.1....
 
11.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Determining threshold level for speech: Guidelines, 1988. https://asha.org/policy/GL1988....
 
12.
Alonso S, Cristiani H, Cittadino K, Minniti C, Neustadt N, Virgallito O, Militano G. El Enmascaramiento en la Logoaudiometria. Revista Fonoaudiológica, 2024; 71(2): 5–18 [in Spanish]. https://www.fonoaudiologica.as....
 
13.
Lidén G, Nilsson G, Anderson H. Masking in clinical audiometry. Acta Otolaryngol, 1958; 50(1–2). https://doi.org/10.3109/000164....
 
14.
Yacullo WS. Clinical Masking Procedures. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1996.
 
15.
Gelfand SA, Calandruccio L. Essentials of Audiology, Fifth Ed. New York: Thieme Publishers; 2023.
 
16.
Klodd DA, Edgerton BJ. Occlusion effect: bone conduction speech audiometry using forehead and mastoid placement. Audiology, 1977; 16(6): 522–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/002060....
 
17.
Floyd D. The Masking Handbook for Audiometry. Bedford, N.S. Canada: TMH Publishing; 2023.
 
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top