Audiograms and frequency selectivity fail to predict pitch perception deficits

Evidence

Many studies have demonstrated that listeners with hearing loss experience abnormally large frequency discrimination thresholds for pure tones (FDLs; e.g., Moore & Peters, 1992; Tyler, Wood, & Fernandes, 1983). However, these studies also document a wide range of performance abilities when it comes to frequency discrimination. FDLs can be nearly normal in some listeners, but severely elevated in others. Notably, the audiogram does not correlate with the alterations in pitch perception experienced by these listeners. Further, when frequency selectivity is measured (as was done by both Tyler et al., who measured psychophysical tuning curves, and Moore and Peters, who measured auditory filters using the notched-noise method), FDLs were not correlated with frequency selectivity measures. The lack of correlation is particularly problematic for place models of pitch perception, which would predict that poor frequency selectivity should elevate FDLs. — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 1330

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The dissociation between audiometric loss and frequency discrimination is counterintuitive and clinically important — it forces a rethinking of what pitch impairments actually track.
• QUESTION: If audiogram and tuning curves don’t predict FDLs, what does? This hints at a fundamental gap in current theories of cochlear impairment.
• XREF: Connects to models where place codes predict tuning-curve-linked FDLs; the failed prediction reinforces temporal-code involvement.
• SEED: An essay angle: why the standard audiogram fails as a predictor of a core perceptual deficit — the gap between clinical measures and actual hearing experience.