Pseudohypacusic Disturbance in Adults

  • E. Harris Nober

Abstract

In audiometry, descriptive terms like hearing loss, hearing disorder, hearing disturbance, hearing dysfunction, and dysacusis are used in specific contexts. More recently, the term “auditory” has gained favor over “hearing” since the former relates to a physiological system and not just a perceptual process per se. In the past, the main body of literature dealing with pseudohypacusic disturbance employed “hearing loss” in spite of the fact that this term may lack validity. Often, there is no physiological loss in pseudohypacusic disturbance. This author will reserve hearing loss to describe actual shifts in auditory sensitivity and use it in direct quotations from the literature. Auditory disturbance will be used in lieu of hearing loss since the former is more valid by definition alone. Hearing loss implies a reduction in auditory sensitivity or threshold shift and this may or may not be the case.

Keywords

Hearing Loss Pure Tone Auditory Feedback Threshold Shift Hearing Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Azzi, A. Le prove per suelare la simulazione di sordita. Review of Audiology, 1951, Prat 1, 5–6.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, H. A., Jr., Martin, F. N. Non-organic hearing loss, Case Report. Laryngoscope, 1961, 71, 209–210.Google Scholar
  3. Ballantyne, J. Deafness. Boston: Little Brown, 1960.Google Scholar
  4. Barelli, P. A., Ruder, L. Medico-legal evaluation of hearing problems. Eye, Ear, Nose, Throat Monographs, 1970, 49, 398–405.Google Scholar
  5. Barr, B. Non-organic hearing problems in school children: Functional deafness. Acta Otolaryngologica, 1960, 52, 337–346.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, K. Nonorganic hearing loss in children. Laryngoscope, 1965, 75, 447–457.Google Scholar
  7. Black, J. W. The persistance of the effects of delayed side tone. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1955, 20, 65–68.Google Scholar
  8. Brockman, S. J., Hoversten, G. H. Pseudoneural hypacusis in children. Laryngoscope, 1960, 70, 825–839.Google Scholar
  9. Calearo, C. Detection of malingering by periodically switched speech. Laryngoscope, 1957, 67, 130–136.Google Scholar
  10. Carhart, R. Individual differences in hearing for speech. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology, 1946, 55, 233–266.Google Scholar
  11. Carhart, R. Monitored live-voice as a test for auditory acuity. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1946, 17, 339–349.Google Scholar
  12. Carhart, R. Speech audiometry in clinical evaluation. Acta Otolaryngologica, 1952, 41, 18–48.Google Scholar
  13. Carhart, R. Audiometry in diagnosis. Laryngoscope, 1958, 68, 253–277.Google Scholar
  14. Carhart, R. The determination of hearing loss. Veterans Administration Department of Medicine and Surgery Information Bulletin, 18. 10–115. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960.Google Scholar
  15. Carhart, R. Tests for malingering. Transactions of the American Academy of Opthamology and Otolaryngology, 1961, 65, 437.Google Scholar
  16. Causey, G. D., McGranahan, L. M. Determination of organic hearing threshold by means of delayed sidetone. Journal of the American Speech and Hearing Association,1959, 1,106 (abstr.).Google Scholar
  17. Chaiklin, J. B. The relation among three selected auditory speech thresholds. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1959, 2, 237–243.Google Scholar
  18. Chaiklin, J. B., Ventry, I. M. Functional hearing loss. In J. Jerger (Ed.), Modern developments in audiology (Chapter 3 ). New York: Academic Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  19. Chase, R. A., Sutton, S., Fowler, E. P., Jr., Ruhm, J. B. Low sensation level delayed clicks and keytapping. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1961, 4, 73–78.Google Scholar
  20. Chase, R. A., Sutton, S., Rapi, J. Sensory feedback influences on motor performance. Journal of Auditory Research, 1961, 3, 212–223.Google Scholar
  21. Cherry, C. E., Taylor, W. K. Some further experiments upon the recognition of speech with one and two ears. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 1954, 26, 554–559.Google Scholar
  22. Cody, D., Bickford, R. Cortical audiometry: An objective method of evaluating auditory acuity in man. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 1965, 48, 273–287.Google Scholar
  23. Cody, D., Griffing, T., Taylor, W. Assessment of the newer tests of auditory function. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology, 1968, 77, 686–705.Google Scholar
  24. Cooper, W. A., Jr., Stokinger, T. E. Pure tone delayed auditory feedback: Effective of prin. exp. Journal of the American Audiology Society,1976, 1, 64–68. (a) Google Scholar
  25. Davis, H. The phenomenon of evoked responses in general. Evoked Response Audiology, 1969, 6, 69.Google Scholar
  26. Davis, J., Silverman, S. Hearing and deafness. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1978.Google Scholar
  27. Derbyshire, N., Fraser, H., McDermott, M., Bridge, A. Audiometric Measurements by Electroencephalography. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1956, 8, 467–478.Google Scholar
  28. Dixon, R. F., Newby, H. A. Children with nonorganic hearing problems. AMA Archives of Otolaryngology, 1959, 70, 619–623.Google Scholar
  29. Doerfler, L. G. Psychogenic deafness and its detection. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, Laryngolo- 8y, 1951, 60, 1045–1948.Google Scholar
  30. Doerfler, L. G., Epstein, A. The Doerfler-Stewart (D-S) test for functional hearing loss. (Monograph). Washington, D.C.: Veterans Administration, 1956.Google Scholar
  31. Doerfler, L. G., Stewart, K. Malingering and psychogenic deafness. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1946, 181–186.Google Scholar
  32. Farley, J., Waldrop, W. W., Derbyshire, A. H., Carter, R. L., Austin, D. F., McCormick, C., Mills, P. J. Psychic factors in hearing loss. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology, 1960, 69, 731–776.Google Scholar
  33. Farley, J., McCormick, C., Oppfeli, C., Mills, P. The functions of psychic factors in hearing loss. Audiology, 1962, 1, 125–133.Google Scholar
  34. Fletcher, H. Method of calculating hearing loss for speech from an audiogram. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 1950, 22, 1–5.Google Scholar
  35. Fournier, J. E. The detection of auditory malingering. Transi. Beltone Inst. Hear. Res., 1958, 8, 1–23.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Foumier, J. E. The problems of psychogenic deafness. International Audiology, 1962, 123–124.Google Scholar
  37. Fowler, E. P., Jr. Medicine of the ear. New York: Williams and Wilkins, 1947.Google Scholar
  38. Galambos, R., Rosenberg, P. E., Glorig, A. The eyeblink response as a test for hearing. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1953, 18, 373–378.Google Scholar
  39. Gaynor, E. B. Hearing and non-organic hearing loss. Archives of Otolaryngology, 1974, 100, 199–200.Google Scholar
  40. Geisler, C. D. Discussion of C. D. Geisler average responses to clicks in man recorded by scalp electrodes (Technical Report 380, Research Laboratory of Electronics, M.I.T., November 4, 1960). Annals of the N.Y. Academy of Science,1964, //2, 218–219.Google Scholar
  41. Gibbons, E. W. Aspects of traumatic and military psychogenic deafness and simulation. International Audiology,1962,/, 151–154.Google Scholar
  42. Gibbons, E. W., Winchester, R. A. A delayed side tone test for detecting uniaural functional deafness. AMA Archives of Otolaryngology, 1957, 66, 70–78.Google Scholar
  43. Glorig, A. Malingering. Annals of Otology, Rhinology. Laryngology, 1954, 63, 802–815.Google Scholar
  44. Goetzinger, C. P., Prowd, G. O. Deafness: Examination techniques for evaluating malingering and psychogenic disabilities. Journal of the Kansas Medical Society, 1958, 39, 95–101.Google Scholar
  45. Goldstein, R. Effectiveness of conditioned electrodermal responses (EDR) in measuring pure-tone thresholds in case of non-organic hearing loss. Laryngoscope, 1956, 66, 119–130.Google Scholar
  46. Goldstein, R. Pseudohypacusis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1966, 31, 341–352.Google Scholar
  47. Goldstein, R. Use of averaged electroencephalic response (AER) in evaluating central auditory function. Paper presented to Annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Chicago, November 12, 1969.Google Scholar
  48. Grave, T. G. Performance of jaive and role-playing pseudo-malingerers on an unconditioned EDR audiometric test. Journal of Auditory Research, 1966, 6, 337–350.Google Scholar
  49. Harbert, F. Functional and simulated deafness. U.S. Navy Medical Bulletin, 1943, 41, 458–471.Google Scholar
  50. Hardy, W. G. Special techniques for diagnosis and treatment of psychogenic deafness. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology, 1948, 57, 65–95.Google Scholar
  51. Harris, D. A. A rapid and simple technique for the detection of nonorganic hearing loss. A MA Archives of Otolaryngology, 1958, 68, 758–760.Google Scholar
  52. Hattler, K. W. The Type V Bekesy pattern: The effects of loudness memory. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1968, 11, 567–575.Google Scholar
  53. Hattler, K. W. Lengthened-offtime: A self-recording screening device for nonorganicity. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1970, 35, 113–122.Google Scholar
  54. Heller, M. F., Anderman, B., Singer, F. Functional otology. New York: Springer, 1955.Google Scholar
  55. Hood, J. Modern marking techniques and their application to the diagnosis of functional deafness. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 1959, 73, 536–543.Google Scholar
  56. Hood, W. H., Campbell, K. A., Hutton, C. L. An evaluation of the Bekesy ascending descending gap. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1964, 7, 123–132.Google Scholar
  57. Hopkinson, N. T. Type V Bekesy audiograms: Specification and clinical utility. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1965, 30, 243–251.Google Scholar
  58. Hopkinson, N. T. Speech tests for nonorganic hearing loss. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of clinical audiology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1972, pp. 374–394.Google Scholar
  59. Hopkinson, N. T. Speech tests for pseudohypacusis. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of clinical audiology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1978, pp. 291–303.Google Scholar
  60. Hopkinson, N. T., Katz, J., Schill, H. A. Instrumental avoidance galvanic skin response audiometry. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1960, 25, 349–357.Google Scholar
  61. Jepson, O. Intratympanic muscle reflexes in psychogenic deafness (impedance measurements). Acta Otolaryngologica Supplement, 1953, 109, 61–69.Google Scholar
  62. Jepson, O. Middle-ear muscle reflexes in man. In J. Jerger (Ed.), Modern developments in audiology. New York: Academic Press, 1963, pp. 194–237.Google Scholar
  63. Jerger, J., Herer, G. Unexpected dividend in Bekesy auiometry. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1961, 26, 390–391.Google Scholar
  64. Jerger, J. F., Tillman, T. W. A new method of clinical determination of sensorineural activity level (SAL). Archives of Otolaryngology, 1960, 71, 948–955.Google Scholar
  65. Jerger, J. F., Carhart, R., Tillman, T. W., Peterson, J. L. Some relations between normal hearing for pure tones and for speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,1959, 2,126140.Google Scholar
  66. Johnson, K. O., Work, W. P., McCoy, G. Functional deafness. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology, 1956, 65, 154–170.Google Scholar
  67. Juers, A. L. Pure tone threshold and hearing for speech: Diagnostic significance of inconsistencies. Laryngoscope, 1956, 66, 402–409.Google Scholar
  68. Kacker, S. K. Bekesy audiometry in simulated hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1971, 36, 506–510.Google Scholar
  69. Karlovich, R., Graham, J. T. Effects of pure tone synchronous and delayed auditory feedback on keytapping performance to a programmed visual stimulus. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,1966, 9, 396–603.Google Scholar
  70. Katz, J. (Ed.), Handbook of clinical audiology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1978.Google Scholar
  71. Katz, J., Connelly, R. Instrumental avoidance vs. classical conditioning in GSR speech audiometry. Journal of Auditory Research, 1964, 4, 171–179.Google Scholar
  72. Klotz, R. E., Koch, A. W., Hackett, T. P. Psychogenic hearing loss in children: A preliminary report. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology, 1960, 69, 199–205.Google Scholar
  73. Kodman, F., Jr. Lateralization method for evaluating non-organic deafness. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology, 1961, 70, 224–233.Google Scholar
  74. Kodman, F., Jr., Sedlacek, G., Powers, T. A preliminary study of personality characteristics of auditory malingerers. Acta Otolaryngologica, 1959, 50, 455.Google Scholar
  75. Lamb, L. E., Peterson, J. L. Middle ear reflex measurements in pseudophypacusis. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,1967, 32, 46–51.Google Scholar
  76. Leshie, G. H. Childhood nonorganic hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1960, 25, 290–292.Google Scholar
  77. Martin, F. Nonorganic hearing loss. In Introduction to audiology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975, pp. 335–362.Google Scholar
  78. Martin, F. Introduction to audiology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1978.Google Scholar
  79. Martin, N. A. Psychogenic deafness. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology, 1946, 55, 81–89.Google Scholar
  80. McCandless, G. A., Best, L. Summed evoked responses using pure tone stimuli. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1964, 9, 266–272.Google Scholar
  81. McCandless, G., Lentz, W. Evoked response audiometry in nonorganic hearing loss. Archives of Otolaryngology, 1968, 87, 123–128.Google Scholar
  82. McGranahan, L., Causey, D., Studebaker, G. A. Delayed sidetone audiometry. Journal of the American Speech and Hearing Association, 1960, 2, 357.Google Scholar
  83. Melnick, W. Comfort level and loudness matching for continuous and interrupted signals. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1967, 10, 99–109.Google Scholar
  84. Menzel, O. J. Clinical efficiency in compensation audiometry. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1960, 25, 49–54.Google Scholar
  85. Metz, O. The acoustic impedance measured on normal and pathological ears. Acta Otolaryngologica Supplement, 1946, 63, 1–253.Google Scholar
  86. Miller, G. A., Licklider, J. C. R. The intelligibility of interrupted speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1950, 22, 167–173.Google Scholar
  87. Morrissett, L. E. The aural rehabilitation program of the U.S. Army for the deaf and hard of hearing. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology, 1946, 55, 821–838.Google Scholar
  88. Newby, H. A. Audiology: principles and practice. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1958.Google Scholar
  89. Nober, E. H. GSR magnitudes for different intensities of shock, conditioned tone and extraction tone. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1958, 1, 316–324.Google Scholar
  90. Nober, E. H. Vibrotactile sensitivity of deaf children. Laryngoscope, 1967, 77, 2128–2146.Google Scholar
  91. Nober, E. H. Cutile air and bone conduction thresholds of the deaf. Exceptional Children, 1970, 571–579.Google Scholar
  92. Pang-Ching, G. The Tone-in-noise test: A preliminary report. Journal of Auditory Research, 1970, 19, 311–327.Google Scholar
  93. Peck, J. E., Ross, M. A comparison of the ascending and descending modes for administering the pure-tone Stenger test. Journal of Auditory Research, 1970, 10, 218–220.Google Scholar
  94. Peterson, J. L. Non-organic hearing loss in children and Bekesy audiometry. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1963, 28, 153–155.Google Scholar
  95. Portmann, M., Portmann, C. Clinical audiometry. New York: Charles C Thomas, 1961. Pitman, L. K. A device for detecting simulated unilateral deafness. Journal of American Medical Associates, 1943, 121, 752–753.Google Scholar
  96. Price, L., Sheperd, D. C., Goldstein, R. Abnormal Bekesy tracings in normal ears. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1965, 30, 139–144.Google Scholar
  97. Ramsdell, D. A. The psychology of the hard of hearing and the deafened adult. In H. Davis R. S. Silverman (Eds.), Hearing and deafness. New York: Holt, Rinehart Winston, 1978, pp. 499–510.Google Scholar
  98. Rapin, I., Costa, L., Mandel, I., Fromowitz, A. Effect of varying delays in auditory feedback on key-tapping of children. Perceptual Motor Skills, 1963, 16, 489–500.Google Scholar
  99. Resnick, D. M., Burke, K. S. Bekesy audiometry in nonorganic auditory problems. Archives of Otolaryngology, 1962, 76, 38–41.Google Scholar
  100. Rintelmann, W., Harford, E. The detection and assessment of pseudohypacusis among school-age children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1963, 28, 144–152.Google Scholar
  101. Rintelmann, W. F., Harford, E. Type V Bekesy pattern: Interpretation and clinical utility. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1967, 10, 733–744.Google Scholar
  102. Rosenblith, W. Some quantifiable aspects of the electrical activity of the nervous system. Review Modern Physics, 1957, 31, 532–545.Google Scholar
  103. Ross, M. The variable intensity pulse count method (VIPCM) for the detection and measurement of the pure-tone thresholds of children with functional hearing losses. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1964, 29, 477–482.Google Scholar
  104. Ruhm, H. B., Carhart, R. Objective speech audiometry. A new method based on electrodermal response. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1958, 1, 169–178.Google Scholar
  105. Ruhm, H. B., Cooper, W. A., Jr. Low sensation level effects of pure-tone delayed auditory feedback. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1962, 5, 185–193.Google Scholar
  106. Ruhm, H. B., Cooper, W. A., Jr. Some factors that influence pure-tone delayed auditory feedback. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1963, 6, 223–237.Google Scholar
  107. Ruhm, H. B., Cooper, W. A., Jr. Delayed feedback audiometry. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1964, 29, 448–455.Google Scholar
  108. Ruhm, H. B., Menzel, O. J. Objective speech audiometry in cases of nonorganic hearing loss. Archives of Otolaryngology, 1959, 69, 212–219.Google Scholar
  109. Saltzman, M. Clinical audiology. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1949.Google Scholar
  110. Sataloff, J. Industrial deafness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957.Google Scholar
  111. Semenov, H. Deafness of psychic origin and its response to narcosynthesis. Transactions of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, 1947, 51, 326–348.Google Scholar
  112. Shepherd, D. C. Nonorganic hearing loss and the consistency of behavioral auditory responses. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1965, 8, 149–163.Google Scholar
  113. Snyder, J. M. Characteristic patterns of etiologic significance from routine audiometric tests and case history. Maico Audiology Library Series, 1977.Google Scholar
  114. Spilka, B. Some vocal efforts of different reading passages and time delays in speech feedback. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,1954, /9, 37–47.Google Scholar
  115. Stark, J. Jerger types in Fixell-frequency Bekesy audiometry with normal and hypacusic children. Journal of Auditory Research, 1966, 6, 135–140.Google Scholar
  116. Stein, L. Some observations on Type V Bekesy tracings. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1963, 6, 339–348.Google Scholar
  117. Taylor, G. An experimental study of tests for the detection of auditory malingering. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1949, 14, 119–130.Google Scholar
  118. Thomsen, K. A. Employment of impedance measurements in otologic and otoneurologic diagnostics. Acta Otolaryngologica, 1955, 45, 159–167.Google Scholar
  119. Thorne, B. Psycho-tell. An aid in the estimate of functional auditory disorders. Acta Otolaryngologica, 1960, 72, 622–630.Google Scholar
  120. Tiffany, W. R., Hanley, C. N. Delayed speech feedback as a test for auditory malingering. Science, 1962, 115, 59–63.Google Scholar
  121. Tillman, T. W., Jerger, J. F. Some factors affecting the spondee threshold in normal hearing subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1959, 2, 141–146.Google Scholar
  122. Truex, E. H., Jr. Psychogenic deafness. Connecticut State Medical Journal, 1946, 10, 907–915.Google Scholar
  123. Ventry, I. M., Chaiklin, J. B. Multidiscipline study of functional hearing loss. Journal of Auditory Research,1965, 5,179–272. (a)Google Scholar
  124. Ventry, I. M., Chaiklin, J. B. Evaluation of pure-tone audiogram configurations used in identifying adults with functional hearing loss. Journal of Auditory Research, 1965, 5, 212–218. (b)Google Scholar
  125. Watson, J. E., Voots, R. H. A report on the use of the Bekesy audiometer in the performance of the Stenger test. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1964, 29, 36–46.Google Scholar
  126. Watson, L. A., Tolan, T. Hearing tests and hearing instruments. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1949.Google Scholar
  127. Watson, L., Tolan, T. Hearing loss and hearing instruments. New York: Hafner, 1967.Google Scholar
  128. Wedenberg, E. Audiotory tests on newborn infants. Acta Otolaryngologica, 1956, 46, 447–461.Google Scholar
  129. Wedenberg, E. Objective auditory tests on non-cooperative children. Acta Otolaryngologica, 1963, 175, 1–32.Google Scholar
  130. Weiss, H., Windrem, E. Some methodological problems in identificates of functional deafness. Archives of Otolaryngology, 1960, 72, 240–247.Google Scholar
  131. Williamson, D. Functional hearing loss: A review. Maico Audiology Library Series, 1974, 12, 33–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Harris Nober
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Communication DisordersUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations