Estimating Nonorganic Hearing Thresholds Using Binaural Auditory Stimuli

Contralateral proximal interference

A contralateral "cue" tone presented in continuous broadband noise both lowers the threshold of a signal tone by guiding attention to it and raises its threshold by interference. Here, signal tones were fixed in duration (40 ms, 52 ms with ramps), frequency (1500 Hz), timing, and level, so attention did not need guidance. Interference by contralateral cues was studied in relation to cue-signal proximity, cue-signal temporal overlap, and cue-signal order (cue after: backward interference, BI; or cue first: forward interference, FI). Cues, also ramped, were 12 dB above the signal level. Long cues (300 or 600 ms) raised thresholds by 5.3 dB when the signal and cue overlapped and by 5.1 dB in FI and 3.2 dB in BI when cues and signals were separated by 40 ms. Short cues (40 ms) raised thresholds by 4.5 dB in FI and 4.0 dB in BI for separations of 7 to 40 ms, but by ∼13 dB when simultaneous and in phase. FI and BI are comparable in magnitude and hardly increase when the signal is close in time to abrupt cue transients. These results do not support the notion that masking of the signal is due to the contralateral cue onset/offset transient response. Instead, sluggish attention or temporal integration may explain contralateral proximal interference.

Questionable Use of "Nonorganic" in Norrix et al. (2017), "Estimating Nonorganic Hearing Thresholds"

PURPOSE

The author of this letter to the editor expresses concern about the use of the word "nonorganic" as a source of confusion in terminology. Specifically, this is in response to the December 2017 American Journal of Audiology article, "Estimating Nonorganic Hearing Thresholds Using Binaural Auditory Stimuli" (Norrix, Rubiano, & Mueller, 2017). "Nonorganic" is a source of confusion in terminology, because it can be used in two different ways. One way can mean to say there is no hearing loss. When used in this sense, it is illogical because it is qualifying a hearing loss believed not to exist. The second usage means there is a real disorder of function, but the organs themselves are not damaged and the basis is unknown. In the place of "nonorganic," I have proposed "false hearing loss." "Nonorganic" might carry a negative connotation that "false" might not. Many instances of false hearing loss stem from physical-mental health disturbances. Audiologists must stay alert to signs of psychosocial difficulty and refer for further evaluation accordingly.

CONCLUSION

"False" hearing loss is a more appropriate term than "nonorganic" hearing loss.