PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1857618

Pseudohypacusis.

W F Rintelmann·S A Schwan·B W Blakley
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article provides the basis for the techniques and interpretation of audiologic tests useful in evaluation of the patient with pseudohypacusis. Differences between the childhood and adult forms of the problem are discussed. The indications for currently popular conventional and special tests are presented. These include both behavioral and electrophysiologic measures for assessing auditory function.

Explore related subjects

AudiometryAudiometry, Evoked ResponseAudiometry, Pure-ToneAudiometry, SpeechAuditory ThresholdHearing DisordersHumansTerminology as TopicJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W F Rintelmann, S A Schwan, B W Blakley. 1991. Pseudohypacusis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1857618/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1992

Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds.

The performance on a conversation-following task by 24 hearing-impaired persons was compared with that of 24 matched controls with normal hearing in the presence of three background noises: (a) speech-spectrum random noise, (b) a male voice, and (c) the male voice played in reverse. The subjects' task was to readjust the sound level of a female voice (signal), every time the signal voice was attenuated, to the subjective level at which it was just possible to understand what was being said. To assess the benefit of lipreading, half of the material was presented audiovisually and half auditorily only. It was predicted that background speech would have a greater masking effect than reversed speech, which would in turn have a lesser masking effect than random noise. It was predicted that hearing-impaired subjects would perform more poorly than the normal-hearing controls in a background of speech. The influence of lipreading was expected to be constant across groups and conditions. The results showed that the hearing-impaired subjects were equally affected by the three background noises and that normal-hearing persons were less affected by the background speech than by noise. The performance of the normal-hearing persons was superior to that of the hearing-impaired subjects. The prediction about lipreading was confirmed. The results were explained in terms of the reduced temporal resolution by the hearing-impaired subjects.

Audiometry↗