Hearing — Objective, Subjective and Personal

  • Ronald Hinchcliffe


The measurement of hearing over the last century was dominated by testing the ability of a subject to detect tonal stimuli in the quiet when using one or other ear. Both National and International Standards proliferated to ensure the comparability of measurements wherever, whenever or however these measurements had been made. Over the last three quarters of that century developments in electrical and electroacoustic technology were able to provide a suitable, user-friendly instrument, the manual pure-tone audiometer, to measure an ear’s sensitivity. Each and every report on the hearing of an individual or a group was almost sure to include a hearing chart (audiogram) measured with such an instrument. As the century wore on technology was able to show not only how the testing could be automated, first by self-recorded audiometry and then by computerized audiometry, but how more information could be extracted, particularly using the interactive and adaptive facilities of computerization [1].


Hearing Loss Cochlear Implant Past Half Century Social Indicator Research Hearing Difficulty 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Campbell RA (1974) Computer Audiometry. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 17: 134–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scharf B (1988) The Role of Listening in the Measurement of Hearing. In: Measurement in Hearing and Balance. SDG Stephens and S Prasansuk (Eds). Karger. Basel. Pp 13–26.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suzuki J-i, Kodera K, lino Y, Murakami Y (1999) Reconstructive Surgery of the Middle Ear. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luxon LM, Furman JM, Martini A, Stephens D (Eds) (2003) Textbook of Audiological Medicine. Martin Dunitz, London.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stephens SDG (2003) Audiological Rehabilitation. Ch 30 in LM Luxon, JM Furman, A Martini, D Stephens (Eds) Textbook of Audiological Medicine. Martin Dunitz, London, pp 513–531.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gatehouse S, Noble W (2004) The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale ( SSQ ). International Journal of Audiology 43: 85–99.Google Scholar
  7. 7. html (accessed 22 September 2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Noble W, Hetu R (1994) An ecological approach to disability and handicap. Audiology. 33: 117–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borg E (1998) Audiology in an Ecological Perspective. Scandinavian Audiology Supplement 49; 27: 132–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilholme-Herbst K Psychosocial (1983) consequences of disorders of hearing in the elderly. Ch. 8 in Hinchcliffe R (Ed.) Hearing and Balance in the Elderly. Churchill- Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 174–200.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zautra A, Goodhart D (1979) Quality of life indicators: A review of the literature. Community Mental Health Review 4: 1–10.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ziller RC (1974) Self-other orientation and quality of life. Social Indicators Research 1: 301–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13. 22 June 2003)
  14. 14.
    Miyakita T, Ueda A, Zusho H, Kudoh Y (2002) Self-evaluation scores of hearing difficulties and quality of life components among retired workers with noise-related hearing loss. Journal of Sound and Vibration; 250: 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kerr PC, Stephens D (1997) The Use of an Open-ended Questionnaire to Identify Positive Aspects of Acquired Hearing Loss. Audiology 36: 19–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomas Edison/Henry Ford Winter Estates. Terrell Publishing Co, Fort Meyers, Florida. ISBN 0-935031-67-7. 24-1-2003)
  17. 17.
    Mayo E (1933) The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen G, Faulkner D (1986) Does ‘Elderspeak’ work? The effect of intonation and stress on comprehension and recall of spoken discourse in old age. Language & Communication 6: 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Comfort A (1977) A Good Age. Mitchell Beazley, London, at pp 118–119.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Hinchcliffe
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LondonUK

Personalised recommendations