Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026
Evaluation of a Smartphone-based Human Activity Recognition System in a Daily Living Environment
Published on: December 11, 2015
Evaluating the accuracy of a self-administered smartphone hearing test application in a geriatric population
Andre Jun Hui Wong1, Ryan Ruiyang Ling2,3,4, Chong Boon Teo5
1Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. andrewongjh@gmail.com.
Background:
As the global population ages, hearing loss becomes increasingly prevalent, and is associated with neurocognitive and psychiatric comorbidities, impacting quality of life. Early screening and timely intervention might prevent or delay cognitive decline, a gap in care that can potentially be addressed by self-administered smartphone hearing tests.
Objective:
This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of Mimi™ (Berlin, Germany), a commercially available self-administered smartphone hearing test compared to pure tone audiogram (PTA) in terms of both hearing levels and hearing thresholds in our local geriatric population > 65 years-old.
Method:
Fifty-two participants above 65 years of age requiring conventional audiograms were recruited from a National Referral University Hospital Otolaryngology clinic from March to June 2022. All participants were administered the conventional PTA tests in a sound-proof booth conducted by audiology technicians followed by Mimi™ Hearing Test in a quiet clinic room. Comparisons between the hearing levels of both tests were analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman plots and Gwet's Kappa which looked at concordance. Hearing thresholds were then analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank (SR) test.
Results:
Mimi™ showed strong to very strong correlation with good agreement compared to readings obtained from formal PTA. Concordance in determining hearing loss also showed substantial to almost perfect agreement at each individual frequency, with values of kappa falling between 0.735-0.857. In terms of thresholds, there were no significant differences in thresholds given by both tests except for 2.0 kHz, HFPTA and 4FPTA (p < 0.05).
Conclusion:
Mimi™ serves as a good screening tool for detection of moderate hearing loss for early pickup and treatment except at higher frequencies. The smartphone hearing test is also less accurate in determining the extent of hearing loss and formal PTA after hearing loss is detected on screening should still be standard of care.
