EFR metrics capture hearing loss aspects beyond pure audiometric thresholds
Evidence
There were no significant correlations between the DPOAE measures and the EFR measures indicating that the EFR measures at 70 dB SPL reflect more aspects of hearing loss than captured by auditory threshold measures alone. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5885
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
Related
- Envelope-following response measures capture hearing aspects beyond the audiometric threshold (similarity 0.90)
- Békésy audiometry derives hearing thresholds from button-press tracking of a swept tone (similarity 0.89)
- Combined psychoacoustic and envelope-following-response measures can dissociate hearing-loss subtypes (similarity 0.83)
- Mild hearing losses were chosen specifically to ensure measurable DPOAEs (similarity 0.81)
- Objective hearing measures require linking perception, physiology, and speech ability. (similarity 0.81)
- Both conductive and sensorineural damage drastically alters absolute threshold curves. (similarity 0.81)
- Differential metrics can separate cochlear gain loss from temporal coding deficits in hearing loss (similarity 0.81)
- Echo thresholds vary widely and do not correlate with audiometric thresholds in hearing loss. (similarity 0.80)
- EFR slope across modulation depth reflects supra-threshold temporal coding fidelity (similarity 0.80)
- The audiogram fails as a robust indicator of perceptual deafness deficits (similarity 0.80)
- Objective hearing measures require linking speech perception to psychophysical cue sensitivity (similarity 0.79)
- Hearing loss correlates weakly with precedence-effect echo thresholds. (similarity 0.79)
- Hearing thresholds vary individually but share a common perceptual order (similarity 0.79)
- Hearing loss correlates strongly with age even among listeners with clinically near-normal thresholds (similarity 0.79)
- Psychophysical and EEG measures predict speech-in-noise ability better than pure-tone audiometry (similarity 0.79)