IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Audiogram defects (was Re: Cochlea -- quality of filtering)

Angelo Campanella acampane at postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu
Sat Oct 7 20:20:45 EST 1995


In article <43s97f$1a9 at hollywood.cinenet.net> erc at cinenet.net (Eric Smith) writes:
>From: erc at cinenet.net (Eric Smith)
>Subject: Audiogram defects (was Re: Cochlea -- quality of filtering)
>Date: 21 Sep 1995 11:00:15 -0700


>Thanks for all the answers (and references) to my question about the
>quality of filtering in the cochlea, both here and by email.  The
>general consensus seems to be that the quality of filtering is not very
>high.

>My next question is about the implications of this in cases where the
>hair cells are defective at some frequencies but not others.  It seems
>like the person would still hear tones of those frequencies, but they
>would sound like other frequencies, and would have a higher threshold.
>But an audiogram does not ask what the tones sound like, just whether
>they can be heard at all.  Thus, some people who are actually 100% deaf
>at some frequencies but have normal hearing at others, might have a
>very misleading audiogram.

My undersanding is that in ears with some impulse damage (e.g. gunshot 
exposure), narrowband deep hearing loss shows up around 6 kHz +- 
500 Hz.  These 'channels' can be surrounded by 'islands' of residual hearing.
At higher frequencies, e.g. 8 kHz, hearing is somewhat better and so tests 
in common audiograms of these folks.

Ang.

      /\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Sound Technology /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/




More information about the Audiolog mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net